从精神疾病中恢复与物质使用障碍

IF 0.8 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
P. Corrigan, Sang Qin, L. Davidson, G. Schomerus, V. Shuman, D. Smelson
{"title":"从精神疾病中恢复与物质使用障碍","authors":"P. Corrigan, Sang Qin, L. Davidson, G. Schomerus, V. Shuman, D. Smelson","doi":"10.1108/add-10-2019-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nWhile serious mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorders (SUD) are common, less research has focused on causal beliefs across conditions. This is an important question when trying to understand the experience of dual diagnosis. The purpose of this paper is to examine how three factors representing causal beliefs (biogenetic, psychosocial or childhood adversity) differ by SMI and SUD. This study also examined how causal beliefs were associated with overall, process and outcome beliefs about recovery.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nUsing Mechanical Turks online panel, 195 research participants from the general public completed measures of recovery – overall, outcome and process – for SMI and SUD. Participants also completed the Causal Beliefs Scale yielding three causal factors for SMI and separately for SUD: biogenetic, psychosocial and childhood adversity.\n\n\nFindings\nResults indicated participants endorsed biogenetic cause more for SMI and SUD. Moreover, research participants endorsed biogenetic causes more than the other two for SMI. Results also showed the psychosocial cause was positively associated with recovery for SMI. Biogenetic causes were not. Almost none of the causal indicators was significantly associated with recovery for SUD.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nImplications of these findings for future research and public efforts to enhance attitudes about recovery are discussed.\n","PeriodicalId":51922,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Dual Diagnosis","volume":"1 1","pages":"101-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recovery from mental illness versus substance use disorder\",\"authors\":\"P. Corrigan, Sang Qin, L. Davidson, G. Schomerus, V. Shuman, D. Smelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/add-10-2019-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nWhile serious mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorders (SUD) are common, less research has focused on causal beliefs across conditions. This is an important question when trying to understand the experience of dual diagnosis. The purpose of this paper is to examine how three factors representing causal beliefs (biogenetic, psychosocial or childhood adversity) differ by SMI and SUD. This study also examined how causal beliefs were associated with overall, process and outcome beliefs about recovery.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nUsing Mechanical Turks online panel, 195 research participants from the general public completed measures of recovery – overall, outcome and process – for SMI and SUD. Participants also completed the Causal Beliefs Scale yielding three causal factors for SMI and separately for SUD: biogenetic, psychosocial and childhood adversity.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nResults indicated participants endorsed biogenetic cause more for SMI and SUD. Moreover, research participants endorsed biogenetic causes more than the other two for SMI. Results also showed the psychosocial cause was positively associated with recovery for SMI. Biogenetic causes were not. Almost none of the causal indicators was significantly associated with recovery for SUD.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nImplications of these findings for future research and public efforts to enhance attitudes about recovery are discussed.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":51922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Dual Diagnosis\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"101-110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Dual Diagnosis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/add-10-2019-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Dual Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/add-10-2019-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

虽然严重精神疾病(SMI)和物质使用障碍(SUD)很常见,但很少有研究关注这些疾病的因果关系。当试图理解双重诊断的经验时,这是一个重要的问题。本文的目的是研究代表因果信念的三个因素(生物遗传、社会心理或童年逆境)在重度精神障碍和精神障碍中是如何不同的。本研究还考察了因果信念如何与康复的总体、过程和结果信念相关联。设计/方法/方法使用Mechanical Turks在线小组,来自公众的195名研究参与者完成了SMI和SUD的总体、结果和过程恢复措施。参与者还完成了因果信念量表,得出了重度精神障碍的三个原因,并单独得出了重度精神障碍的三个原因:生物遗传、社会心理和童年逆境。结果显示,参与者更认同重度精神分裂症和SUD的生物遗传原因。此外,与其他两种原因相比,研究参与者更赞同重度精神分裂症的生物遗传原因。结果还显示,心理社会原因与重度精神分裂症的康复呈正相关。生物成因则不然。几乎没有因果指标与SUD的恢复显著相关。原创性/价值这些发现对未来的研究和公众努力提高对康复的态度的意义进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recovery from mental illness versus substance use disorder
Purpose While serious mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorders (SUD) are common, less research has focused on causal beliefs across conditions. This is an important question when trying to understand the experience of dual diagnosis. The purpose of this paper is to examine how three factors representing causal beliefs (biogenetic, psychosocial or childhood adversity) differ by SMI and SUD. This study also examined how causal beliefs were associated with overall, process and outcome beliefs about recovery. Design/methodology/approach Using Mechanical Turks online panel, 195 research participants from the general public completed measures of recovery – overall, outcome and process – for SMI and SUD. Participants also completed the Causal Beliefs Scale yielding three causal factors for SMI and separately for SUD: biogenetic, psychosocial and childhood adversity. Findings Results indicated participants endorsed biogenetic cause more for SMI and SUD. Moreover, research participants endorsed biogenetic causes more than the other two for SMI. Results also showed the psychosocial cause was positively associated with recovery for SMI. Biogenetic causes were not. Almost none of the causal indicators was significantly associated with recovery for SUD. Originality/value Implications of these findings for future research and public efforts to enhance attitudes about recovery are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Dual Diagnosis
Advances in Dual Diagnosis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
15
×
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