The limits of psychiatry

Double, Duncan

doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.900

Cited by 101 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Double, 2002). Additionally, a further legacy of outdated undergraduate psychology teaching might be that some practitioners could remain unaware of the recent development of effective psychological alternatives to psychiatric approaches, and hence might be largely ignorant of current innovations in theory, practice and policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental health teaching to UK psychology undergraduates: report of a survey

Cromby

Harper

Reavey

2007

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the limitations on developing more progressive applied psychology training is the teaching received by students at undergraduate level. In this study, we focus on the provision of teaching about mental health or its equivalents (e.g. abnormal psychology and clinical psychology) on UK undergraduate psychology programmes. Most students who go on to train as clinical psychologists will have received teaching on modules like these. A survey questionnaire was sent to 109 university departments which might offer a module in mental health and 348 individuals who might be involved in delivering such modules. The majority of programmes responding offered a mental health module which was available each year as an optional subject. A number of findings on the content and delivery of the modules are reported and a number of recommendations are made including more involvement from practitioners and service users. KeywordsMental health teaching; applied psychology training; clinical psychology training; abnormal psychology Despite their obvious interconnections, social and clinical psychology are often seen as relatively distinct and separate fields -a separation that, for many psychologists, begins with their undergraduate training. This separation reproduces the culturally normative dualisms between individual and society and mind and body, which organize the fracturing of psychology into relatively autonomous subdisciplines. Thus, in the undergraduate curriculum social and biological psychology are typically clearly distinguished from each other, and both are frequently organized separately from most teaching about mental health and illness. Yet the structuring of the curriculum in such ways does not only reflect cultural commonplaces about what it is to be human, it also reflects the material separation of interests into independently constituted fields, each with their own favored theories, methods, funding bodies, conferences and journals. Whilst this subdisciplinary specialization has yielded undoubted benefits in terms of targeting of resources, focusing of research questions, the development of technical and substantive expertise and the organisation of professional training and accreditation, it has also generated costs. For example, community psychology takes seriously the social dimension of distress and attempts to formulate appropriate social interventions, but its minority status by comparison to the clinical mainstream might stem at least in part from its cross-or inter-disciplinary orientation. And similarly, the hierarchical distinctions between pure and applied research rest at least in part upon notions of disciplinary purity that eschew the necessary contaminations of applied study. It is for such reasons that the undergraduate teaching of issues such as mental health and illness -which cut across the boundaries between social and clinical, pure and applied psychology -might be of particular relevance to readers of this journal. 3Clinical psychology, like other applied psychology discipline...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental health teaching to UK psychology undergraduates: report of a survey

Cromby

Harper

Reavey

2007

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no evidence that the 2004 NICE recommendation to limit first-line use to moderate to severe depression has had any impact ( Figure 1). [4][5][6] Furthermore these levels of prescribing have not been associated with a reduction in the related burden of care, with the number of people claiming incapacity benefit for a mental or behavioural disorder rising steadily from under 750 000 in 2000 to nearly a million in 2008 (Figure 2). 7 The association between rising levels of drug treatment and increasing disability may not be surprising in the light of recent research on antidepressants which suggests they may not be superior to placebo, certainly for the majority of patients with milder degrees of depression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘They won't do any harm and might do some good’: time to think again on the use of antidepressants?

Middleton¹

2011

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite NICE guidance that should have limited it, antidepressant prescribing continues to increase. Research evidence suggests that much if not all of the observed efficacy should be attributed to complex non-specific effects rather than 'restoration of disturbed brain chemistry'. According to this view the uncertain benefits of antidepressants are unlikely to outweigh the risks, suggesting the need to explore other approaches to treatment.

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Previous work suggests a large 'unmet' need for the treatment of psychological disorders, [4][5][6] with a suggested reallocation of resources from milder to more serious cases to decrease unmet need in more serious disorders. 4 Evidence from population surveys suggests that most people do not seek help for depression or anxiety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%