Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan
Open Access
- 9 July 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Medicine
- Vol. 3 (1), 12
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-3-12
Abstract
Surveys of the public in a number of countries have shown poor recognition of mental disorders and beliefs about treatment that often diverge from those of health professionals. This lack of mental health literacy can limit the optimal use of treatment services. Australia and Japan are countries with very different mental health care systems, with Japan emphasising hospital care and Australia more oriented to community care. Japan is also more collectivist and Australia more individualist in values. These differences might influence recognition of disorders and beliefs about treatment in the two countries. Surveys of the public were carried out in each country using as similar a methodology as feasible. In both countries, household interviews were carried out concerning beliefs in relation to one of four case vignettes, describing either depression, depression with suicidal thoughts, early schizophrenia or chronic schizophrenia. In Australia, the survey involved a national sample of 3998 adults aged 18 years or over. In Japan, the survey involved 2000 adults aged between 20 and 69 from 25 regional sites spread across the country. The Japanese public were found to be more reluctant to use psychiatric labels, particularly for the depression cases. The Japanese were also more reluctant to discuss mental disorders with others outside the family. They had a strong belief in counsellors, but not in GPs. They generally believe in the benefits of treatment, but are not optimistic about full recovery. By contrast, Australians used psychiatric labels more often, particularly "depression". They were also more positive about the benefits of seeking professional help, but had a strong preference for lifestyle interventions and tended to be negative about some psychiatric medications. Australians were positive about both counsellors and GPs. Psychiatric hospitalization and ECT were seen negatively in both countries. There are some major differences between Australia and Japan in recognition of disorders and beliefs about treatment. Some of these may relate to the different health care systems, but the increasing openness about mental health in Australia is also likely to be an explanatory factor.This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prevalence, comorbidity, disability and service utilisationThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2001
- Mental health literacyThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2000
- Mental Health Nurses' Beliefs About Interventions for Schizophrenia and Depression: A Comparison with Psychiatrists and the PublicAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2000
- Public knowledge of and attitudes to mental disorders: a limiting factor in the optimal use of treatment servicesPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2000
- Meeting the unmet need with disease managementPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2000
- Cross sectional study of symptom attribution and recognition of depression and anxiety in primary care Commentary: There must be limits to the medicalisation of human distressBMJ, 1999
- Public attitude towards psychiatric treatmentActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 1996
- Lay people's attitudes to treatment of depression: results of opinion poll for Defeat Depression Campaign just before its launchBMJ, 1996
- Benefits and Risks of Psychotropic Medication in the Eyes of the General Public: Results of a Survey in the Federal Republic of GermanyPharmacopsychiatry, 1993
- Diagnostic disclosure: a tale in two culturesPsychological Medicine, 1992