BackgroundThere are multiple models of mental illness that inform professional and lay
understanding. Few studies have formally investigated psychiatrists'
attitudes. We aimed to measure how a group of trainee psychiatrists
understand familiar mental illnesses in terms of propositions drawn from
different models.MethodWe used a questionnaire study of a sample of trainees from South London and
Maudsley National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust designed to assess
attitudes across eight models of mental illness (e.g. biological,
psychodynamic) and four psychiatric disorders. Methods for analysing
repeated measures and a principal components analysis (PCA) were used.ResultsNo one model was endorsed by all respondents. Model endorsement varied with
disorder. Attitudes to schizophrenia were expressed with the greatest
conviction across models. Overall, the ‘biological’
model was the most strongly endorsed. The first three components of the PCA
(interpreted as dimensions around which psychiatrists, as a group,
understand mental illness) accounted for 56% of the variance. Each main
component was classified in terms of its distinctive combination of
statements from different models: PC1 33% biological versus
non-biological; PC2 12% ‘eclectic’ (combining
biological, behavioural, cognitive and spiritual models); and PC3 10%
psychodynamic versus sociological.ConclusionsTrainee psychiatrists are most committed to the biological model for
schizophrenia, but in general are not exclusively committed to any one
model. As a group, they organize their attitudes towards mental illness in
terms of a biological/non-biological contrast, an
‘eclectic’ view and a psychodynamic/sociological
contrast. Better understanding of how professional group membership
influences attitudes may facilitate better multidisciplinary working.