Researchers call for greater clarity over what constitutes `a mental
health problem'

Date:
February 11, 2022
Source:
University of Bath
Summary:
A systematic review has uncovered a plethora of models used to
understand mental health problems with ramifications for how people
are assessed and supported.



FULL STORY ==========================================================================
A new review of the theoretical models used around the world to assess, diagnose, research, and treat mental health problems has highlighted
the vast array of approaches which exist.


========================================================================== Theoretical models refer to a theory, or a set of theories, which seek
to explain how an issue should be understood and responded to. A model
for mental health problems refers to the causes and characteristics of
the condition.

By examining over 100 publications which referenced 'mental health' or
'mental illness' in some way, the researchers from the University of Bath
(UK) and Bern University of Applied Sciences (Switzerland) identified
some 34 different theoretical models used by practitioners, researchers
and users of mental health services to understand the nature of mental
health problems.

Importantly, they found no criteria which could be used to prioritise
why one model might be used over another. This matters, they say, because
how mental health problems are understood has lasting ramifications for
how people with mental health problems are assessed and supported.

These ranged from biological models (focussing on problems with the
body or brain), to psychological (focussing on the mind and behaviour), sociological (focussing how social circumstances affect people), to models which were informed by consumer and cultural considerations (which reflect
the experiences of people who have been treated by mental health services
and consider how treatments should be adapted to different cultures).

Whilst previously, policymakers and practitioners tried to form consensus
about using so-called 'bio-psycho-social models' -- a catch-all term,
which draws on elements of all different models -- this consensus seems
to be fracturing, say the researchers.



========================================================================== Publishing their review in the Journal of Mental Health, the team say
their findings have important implications in view of the steep increase
in mental health problems diagnosed. According to the Mental Health
Foundation, in just the past week, it is estimated that one in six of
us will have experienced a common mental health problem. However, such
figures are dependent on how the problem of mental health is understood
and measured.

Co-researcher, Dr Jeremy Dixon from the University of Bath's Department
of Social & Policy Sciences and Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy explains: "Uncertainties about what constitutes a mental health problem
have become more pronounced in recent decades due to the increase in
the number of mental health conditions being identified in the manuals
which are used by general practitioners and psychiatrists.

Professor Dirk Richter, from the Bern University of Applied Sciences
adds: "Mental health problems are often presented as something which are understood by medicine and psychiatry. Yet, debate remains about what
exactly mental health problems are and how they should be treated. These
are not just academic. Questions such as, 'what are mental health
problems?' or 'what counts as a mental illness?' have impacts within
health care systems. They can affect decisions around who might receive
a mental health service and how behaviours such as aggression might
be interpreted." "One way out of this issue could be to ask service
users which model they feel to be most appropriate for them and their treatment. The consequence, however, would be that non-medical models
might become more important than clinicians would be willing to accept."
In view of the wide range of models that are used by practitioners, the researchers are now calling for greater clarity over how different and potentially contracting mental health models can be used in practice. They argue that this debate needs greater input from non-medical professions
and service users.

"Mental health practitioners tend to say that they use a bio-psycho-social model in their everyday work, but our research shows that this model
is fracturing. Whilst this field has been dominated by psychiatry and psychology, the perspectives of users of services and other professionals
such as nurses and social workers are now beginning to be heard," adds
Dr Dixon.

"Mental health services need to recognise the wide range of perspectives
which are now held by those who use services. Rather than insisting
users of services accept biological or psychological perspectives,
mental health professionals need to understand and work to people's preferences," says Professor Richter.

special promotion Explore the latest scientific research on sleep and
dreams in this free online course from New Scientist -- Sign_up_now_>>> ========================================================================== Story Source: Materials provided by University_of_Bath. Note: Content
may be edited for style and length.


========================================================================== Journal Reference:
1. Dirk Richter, Jeremy Dixon. Models of mental health problems:
a quasi-
systematic review of theoretical approaches. Journal of Mental
Health, 2022; 1 DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2021.2022638 ==========================================================================

Link to news story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220211102734.htm

--- up 9 weeks, 6 days, 7 hours, 13 minutes
* Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)