Concepts of Mental Disorders Among Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Theologians.

IF 3 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Žana Kralj, Goran Kardum
{"title":"Concepts of Mental Disorders Among Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Theologians.","authors":"Žana Kralj, Goran Kardum","doi":"10.3390/ejihpe14110185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of psychiatrists, psychologists, and theologians on schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and antisocial personality disorder. A cross-sectional research design was utilized, involving a random sample selected from the official registries of these professionals. The findings revealed significant differences in how these groups conceptualize mental disorders. The preferred concepts varied depending on the specific disorder. For instance, when it came to schizophrenia, psychiatrists showed a greater inclination towards the psychodynamic concept compared to psychologists, who leaned more towards the cognitive and social constructivist concepts. In the case of depression, psychiatrists favored biological, psychodynamic, and spiritual concepts, while psychologists tended to prefer the cognitive concept. Theologians consistently favored the spiritual concept across all four diagnoses, in comparison to both psychiatrists and psychologists. This research holds significant value for both theoretical understanding and practical applications, and future studies should consider incorporating qualitative, in-depth research to explore the complexities of these concepts related to mental disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":30631,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education","volume":"14 11","pages":"2819-2834"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11592576/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14110185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of psychiatrists, psychologists, and theologians on schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and antisocial personality disorder. A cross-sectional research design was utilized, involving a random sample selected from the official registries of these professionals. The findings revealed significant differences in how these groups conceptualize mental disorders. The preferred concepts varied depending on the specific disorder. For instance, when it came to schizophrenia, psychiatrists showed a greater inclination towards the psychodynamic concept compared to psychologists, who leaned more towards the cognitive and social constructivist concepts. In the case of depression, psychiatrists favored biological, psychodynamic, and spiritual concepts, while psychologists tended to prefer the cognitive concept. Theologians consistently favored the spiritual concept across all four diagnoses, in comparison to both psychiatrists and psychologists. This research holds significant value for both theoretical understanding and practical applications, and future studies should consider incorporating qualitative, in-depth research to explore the complexities of these concepts related to mental disorders.

精神病学家、心理学家和神学家对精神障碍的概念。
本研究旨在比较精神科医生、心理学家和神学家对精神分裂症、抑郁症、焦虑症和反社会人格障碍的看法。研究采用横断面研究设计,从这些专业人员的官方登记册中随机抽样。研究结果显示,这些群体对精神障碍的概念理解存在显著差异。根据具体障碍的不同,首选的概念也各不相同。例如,就精神分裂症而言,精神科医生更倾向于心理动力学概念,而心理学家则更倾向于认知和社会建构主义概念。在抑郁症方面,精神科医生倾向于生物、心理动力学和精神概念,而心理学家则倾向于认知概念。与精神科医生和心理学家相比,神学家在所有四种诊断中始终倾向于精神概念。这项研究对于理论理解和实际应用都具有重要价值,未来的研究应考虑纳入定性、深入的研究,以探索这些与精神障碍相关的概念的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
111
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信