Display options
Cite
Jorm AF, Nakane Y, Christensen H, et al. Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan. BMC Med. 2005;3:12doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-3-12.
Jorm, A. F., Nakane, Y., Christensen, H., Yoshioka, K., Griffiths, K. M., & Wata, Y. (2005). Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan. BMC medicine, 312. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-3-12
Jorm, Anthony F, et al. "Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan." BMC medicine vol. 3 (2005): 12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-3-12
Jorm AF, Nakane Y, Christensen H, Yoshioka K, Griffiths KM, Wata Y. Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan. BMC Med. 2005 Jul 09;3:12. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-3-12. PMID: 16004615; PMCID: PMC1177951.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Med. 2005 Jul 09;3:12. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-3-12.

Public beliefs about treatment and outcome of mental disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan.

BMC medicine

Anthony F Jorm, Yoshibumi Nakane, Helen Christensen, Kumiko Yoshioka, Kathleen M Griffiths, Yuji Wata

Affiliations

  1. ORYGEN Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Locked Bag 10, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. [email protected]

PMID: 16004615 PMCID: PMC1177951 DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-3-12

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surveys of the public in a number of countries have shown poor recognition of mental disorders and beliefs about treatment that often diverge from those of health professionals. This lack of mental health literacy can limit the optimal use of treatment services. Australia and Japan are countries with very different mental health care systems, with Japan emphasising hospital care and Australia more oriented to community care. Japan is also more collectivist and Australia more individualist in values. These differences might influence recognition of disorders and beliefs about treatment in the two countries.

METHODS: Surveys of the public were carried out in each country using as similar a methodology as feasible. In both countries, household interviews were carried out concerning beliefs in relation to one of four case vignettes, describing either depression, depression with suicidal thoughts, early schizophrenia or chronic schizophrenia. In Australia, the survey involved a national sample of 3998 adults aged 18 years or over. In Japan, the survey involved 2000 adults aged between 20 and 69 from 25 regional sites spread across the country.

RESULTS: The Japanese public were found to be more reluctant to use psychiatric labels, particularly for the depression cases. The Japanese were also more reluctant to discuss mental disorders with others outside the family. They had a strong belief in counsellors, but not in GPs. They generally believe in the benefits of treatment, but are not optimistic about full recovery. By contrast, Australians used psychiatric labels more often, particularly "depression". They were also more positive about the benefits of seeking professional help, but had a strong preference for lifestyle interventions and tended to be negative about some psychiatric medications. Australians were positive about both counsellors and GPs. Psychiatric hospitalization and ECT were seen negatively in both countries.

CONCLUSION: There are some major differences between Australia and Japan in recognition of disorders and beliefs about treatment. Some of these may relate to the different health care systems, but the increasing openness about mental health in Australia is also likely to be an explanatory factor.

References

  1. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000 Apr;188(4):239-42 - PubMed
  2. BMJ. 1999 Jun 5;318(7197):1558 - PubMed
  3. Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;177:396-401 - PubMed
  4. Br J Psychiatry. 2001 Feb;178:145-53 - PubMed
  5. Schizophr Bull. 2001;27(2):181-5 - PubMed
  6. Med J Aust. 2002 May 20;176 Suppl:S84-96 - PubMed
  7. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003 Mar;191(3):166-74 - PubMed
  8. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2003 Oct;253(5):248-51 - PubMed
  9. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003 Dec;38(12):715-9 - PubMed
  10. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004 May;39(5):402-9 - PubMed
  11. Can J Psychiatry. 2004 May;49(5):322-30 - PubMed
  12. Med J Aust. 1990 Aug 20;153(4):192-6 - PubMed
  13. Psychol Med. 1992 Feb;22(1):147-57 - PubMed
  14. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1993 Jul;26(4):114-20 - PubMed
  15. BMJ. 1996 Oct 5;313(7061):858-9 - PubMed
  16. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996 Nov;94(5):326-36 - PubMed
  17. Med J Aust. 1997 Feb 17;166(4):182-6 - PubMed
  18. Br J Psychiatry. 1997 Sep;171:233-7 - PubMed
  19. J R Soc Med. 1998 Feb;91(2):66-71 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 1999 Feb 13;318(7181):436-9 - PubMed
  21. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;34(4):602-11 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types