The Opinions of Italian Psychology Students About People Diagnosed with Depression and Schizophrenia: A Comparative Study

Is the mainstream construction of mood disorders resistant to systemic thinking?

“…Overall, the role of triadic or systemic explanations was negligible. This is in contrast with previous trends reported by Davies ( 1 ) and studies ( 46 , 50 , 51 ) on lay populations less exposed to the “urban legend.”…”

“…Citing an older US study by Jones, Kahn, and Macdonald ( 45 ), Davis ( 1 ) illustrates also how these lay people attributions have shifted from 1970s onwards: patients shifted from relational explanations towards bio-glitch and quick fix attitudes. These findings are also consistent with other research targeting populations not directly influenced by physicians or DTC ads ( 46 , 47 ). O’Neill, Stapley, Stock, Merrick and Humphrey’s ( 48 ) study found that UK adolescents resorted mostly to interpersonal and contextual factors to explain their emotional distress.…”

“…This is consistent with findings from other countries [see ( 50 )]. Magliano et al ( 46 ) also explored how Italian psychology students’ constructions of 2 disorders changed during their 5-year academic training. Interestingly, first year students more frequently mentioned psychosocial factors among the causes of depression and believed more in the usefulness of psychotherapy and less about drugs; they also had more prognostic optimism; at the end of their education, students cited heredity as a cause more than at first year.…”

Views of Catholic Priests Regarding Causes, Treatments and Psychosocial Consequences of Schizophrenia and Depression: A Comparative Study in Italy

“…The tool includes items from the OQ and ad hoc added items to specifically investigate the study context. From the OQ previously validated questionnaire (Magliano et al 2017a , 2018 ), items of the following sections were used: (a) causal beliefs section: sixteen yes/no items grouped into four factors: biological, substance-abuse, stress-related and traumatic causes of MD; (b) recommended professionals section: four yes/no items on health professionals to be involved in the treatment of persons with MD; (c) psychosocial consequences section: seventeen items grouped into the following factors: possibility of recovery, the usefulness of pharmacological and psychological therapies, need for long-term pharmacological therapies, the insight of persons with MDs, perception of social distance from persons with MDs and dangerousness, difficulties of persons with MDs in having romantic relationships. Section c items were rated on a 3-point scale from 1 = “ not true ” to 3 = “ completely true ”.…”

“…Participants were invited to read either a random description of schizophrenia or depression and then to complete a questionnaire on “Persons with a condition like that reported in the description”. Data were collected face-to-face in the parish churches, using a validated questionnaire (Magliano et al 2017a , 2018 ) that was adapted to the survey context and re-validated. The views measured were about causal belief, recovery, usefulness of bio-psychological treatments and religious practices, the need for long-term drug treatments, insight, recognizability and affective difficulties of persons with MDs, dangerousness and social distance from persons with MDs, and persons with MDs participating in parish activities and religious ceremonies.…”