Original Research

Lay Beliefs About Treatments for People With Mental

Illness and Their Implications for Antistigma Strategies
Christoph Lauber, MD1, Nordt Carlos, PhD2 , Rössler Wulf, MD, MA3

Objective: First, to describe factors influencing the public’s attitude toward treatment
recommendations for people with mental illness; second, to identify coherent belief systems about the
helpfulness of specific interventions; and third, to discuss how to ameliorate mental health literacy and
antistigma strategies.
Method: Participants of a representative telephone survey in the general population (n = 1737) were
presented with a vignette depicting a person with either schizophrenia or depression. From a list of
suggestions, they were asked to recommend treatments for this person. We used a factor analysis to
group these proposals and used the factors as the dependent variables in a multiple regression analysis.
Results: Treatment suggestions are summarized in 4 groups, each characterizing a specific therapeutic
approach: 1) psychopharmacological proposals (that is, psychotropic drugs), 2) therapeutic counselling
(from a psychologist or psychiatrist or psychotherapy), 3) alternative suggestions (such as
homeopathy), and 4) social advice (for example, from a social worker). Medical treatments were
proposed by people who had a higher education, who had a positive attitude toward
psychopharmacology, who correctly recognized the person depicted in the vignette as being ill, who
were presented with the schizophrenia vignette, who kept social distance, and who had contact with
mentally ill people. The variables could explain alternative and social treatment proposals only to a
small extent.
Conclusions: The public’s beliefs about treatment for people with mental illness are organized into
4 coherent systems, 2 of which involve evidence-based treatments. Medical treatment proposals are
influenced by adequate mental health literacy; however, they are also linked to more social distance
toward people with mental illness. Additionally, efforts to better explain nonmedical treatment
suggestions are needed. Implications for further antistigma strategies are discussed.
(Can J Psychiatry 2005;50:745–752)
Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article.

Clinical Implications
· The public’s attitude toward mental health treatment is not as logical and clear-cut as expected.
· Improving mental health literacy may increase social distance toward people with mental illness. Thus
strategies to improve attitudes and knowledge, for example, through education or through contact with
mentally ill people, must be carefully evaluated.
· More research is needed to clarify the relation between social distance and knowledge about mental
disorders.

Limitations
· This study highlights the challenges to research on public attitudes, f or example, the tendency to include
communicative and cooperative respondents who tend to respond according to social desirability.
· Attitudes should not be mistaken for actual interpersonal behaviour but should be considered as a proxy
measure of social behaviour.
· Because the linear regression analysis does not allow any missing values, we lost some respondents from
the original sample, owing to missing answers.

Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005 W 745

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry—Original Research

Key Words: mental disorder, stigma, attitude, schizophre- Method

nia, depression, survey, treatment, psychopharmacology,
mental health literacy Sample
We drew a representative sample of the Swiss residential pop-
tigma because of mental illness, especially schizophrenia
S and depression, is widespread. It affects different life
domains: interpersonal relationships, housing, employment,
ulation aged between 16 and 76 years and living in a private
household (n = 1737). We used a telephone directory of the
only telecommunication company in Switzerland, which con-
and overall quality of life. Because of stigma, the rehabilita- tained all telephone numbers, to create a random sample of
tion of people with mental illness is jeopardized. Given these households. We covered 89.7% of the total directory. People
harmful consequences, reducing stigma is an important goal aged over 76 years were excluded because they often have
of public mental health (1,2). problems understanding the interview and because many of
Some initiatives targeted stigma in recent years, for example, them are not living in private households (7). A target person
the initiatives launched by the WPA and the British Royal in each household was selected with the Kish-method, which
College of Psychiatrists (3–5). Undoubtedly, these projects allows random selection of the household member to be inter-
were milestones in attracting public awareness. However, viewed (18). This was done according to 8 selection tables on
most of these campaigns were based on common sense rather the basis of age, sex, and number of household residents. In
than on sound research in this field. More research-based the sampling process, 1037 people refused to take part in the
strategies will be essential to refine our antistigma efforts in interview, which resulted in a response rate of 63%.
the future. More knowledge about contributing factors, such
as lay attitudes toward therapeutic management of mental The Interview, Including Specific Questions About
disorders, is especially required. Treatment Proposals

Several population surveys found mental health professionals We carried out CATI in cooperation with a specialized insti-
to be helpful, particularly with regard to psychiatric treatment. tute for survey research. The interviewers were trained and
However, their treatment methods, especially the use of supervised during the survey. If the selected person within a
psychotropic drugs, were regarded as harmful (3,6–16). Thus contacted household agreed to be interviewed, a date was
we have to recognize that the mental health literacy in the gen- fixed. In the meantime, we sent the interviewees written mate-
eral population, notably the knowledge about psychiatric rial containing visual aids to facilitate the interview and
treatment approaches, is low (17). increase data quality.

Although different research groups have addressed this topic, The interview included 3 parts. Part 1 included general ques-
we know little about the underlying factors of this illiteracy. tions about mental illness and psychiatric institutions, includ-
For a better understanding, we conducted a representative sur- ing the interviewee’s opinion toward psychopharmacology
vey in Switzerland on public attitudes toward treatment rec- (Cronbach’s á = 0.67) (19). Part 2 included a vignette depict-
ommendations for mental illness. Using previously published ing a case of either major depression or schizophrenia fulfill-
descriptive data (9), this paper aims to 1) describe factors ing the respective DSM-III-R criteria (20). One-half of the
influencing the public’s attitude toward treatment recommen- presented vignettes (n = 869) identified the respective psychi-
dations; 2) identify, with a factor analysis, coherent belief sys- atric diagnosis. We asked the remaining 868 interviewees,
tems (that is, whether beliefs about the helpfulness of who were not informed of the diagnosis, to indicate whether
specified interventions cooccur with beliefs about the helpful- the person described either had an illness or was in a life crisis.
ness of other related interventions); and 3) discuss how to
Eighteen treatment proposals (see Table 1) were then pre-
ameliorate mental health literacy and antistigma strategies.
sented. To increase data quality, we had sent these proposals
to the participants in advance. During the telephone interview,
the respondents had to, first, enumerate all proposals consid-
ered to be helpful and, second, enumerate all those regarded as
Abbreviations used in this article harmful, with respect to the person described in the vignette.
CATI computer assisted telephone interviewing The presentation of the vignette was immediately followed by
ECT electroconvulsive therapy questions on social distance toward the respective case
GP general practitioner described (Cronbach’s á = 0.86) (21). In Part 3, we assessed
SD standard deviation respondents’ contact with mentally ill people (Cronbach’s á =
WPA World Psychiatric Association
0.49); their rigidity (Cronbach’s á = 0.62) (22), for example,
individual preference for clarity and stability in life, but also a
low ability to adapt to changes; and their demographic factors.

746
W Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005
 Lay Beliefs About Treatments for People With Mental Illness and Their Implications for Antistigma Strategies

Table 1 Public opinions about treatment recommendations (n = 1737) (9)

Helpful recommendations (%) Harmful recommendations (%)

No proposal 2 (0.12) 14 (0.80)

Visiting a psychologist 1194 (68.74) 59 (3.40)

Visiting a general practitioner 995 (57.28) 89 (5.12)

Getting outside and becoming active 996 (57.34) 62 (3.57)

Visiting a psychiatrist 887 (51.06) 140 (8.06)

Making a psychotherapy appointment 785 (45.19) 125 (7.20)

Calling a counselling service 501 (28.84) 169 (9.73)

Visiting a social worker 496 (28.55) 132 (7.60)

Going to see a priest 491 (28.27) 231 (13.30)

Treatment with antidepressants 401 (23.08) 603 (34.72)

Visiting a naturopath 345 (19.86) 233 (13.41)

Taking homeopathy 363 (20.90) 280 (16.12)

Treatment in a psychiatric hospital 296 (17.04) 392 (22.57)

Taking vitamins and minerals 209 (12.03) 390 (22.45)

Taking a tranquilizer 205 (11.80) 840 (48.36)

Taking antipsychotics 189 (10.88) 637 (36.67)

Dealing alone with the situation 78 (4.49) 1138 (65.52)

Taking hypnotics 70 (4.03) 1065 (61.31)

Receiving ECT 23 (1.32) 1041 (59.93)

Numbers of recommendations (SD) 4.91 (2.44) 4.39 (2.54)

Statistical Analyses and getting outside and becoming active (Cronbach’s á =

After the descriptive data analysis (Table 1) (9), we performed 0.60) and
a factor analysis including the 18 treatment recommendations.
4. Social recommendations, such as visiting a social worker,
The answers were coded as follows: 1 for helpful, –1 for
going to see a priest, or seeking telephone counselling
harmful, and 0 for not mentioned at all (Table 2). Of the 18
(Cronbach’s á = 0.39).
items, the following 4 factors could be discriminated:
ECT and GPs did not load on a factor and are therefore sepa-
1. Pharmacologic recommendations, including tranquilizers, rately analyzed (23).
hypnotics, antidepressants, and antipsychotics
Of the 4 factors, we constructed a summative index of phar-
(Cronbach’s á = 0.69).
macologic or therapeutic, compared with alternative or social,
2. Therapeutic recommendations, such as visiting a psychol- treatment recommendations (Cronbach’s a = 0.56). This
ogist, visiting a psychiatrist, not dealing with the situation allowed us to distinguish recommendations shaped by a medi-
alone, getting treatment in a psychiatric hospital, and cal understanding from those based on an alternative compre-
receiving psychotherapy (Cronbach’s á = 0.54). hension of treatment. To control for the confounding effect of
the scale “positive attitude toward psychopharmacology,” we
3. Alternative recommendations, such as visiting a naturo- constructed a subindex on therapeutic, compared with alter-
path, taking vitamins and minerals, taking homeopathy, native, social treatment recommendations (Cronbach’s

Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005 W 747

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry—Original Research

Table 2 Rotated factor loadings (varimax) of the 18 treatment recommendations (n = 1737)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Tranquilizers 0.77 0.12 –0.09 –0.03

Hypnotics 0.71 0.10 –0.21 –0.01

Antipsychotics 0.68 –0.10 0.24 –0.01

Antidepressants 0.63 0.06 0.30 –0.05

Homeopathy 0.17 0.71 0.02 0.06

Naturopath -0.03 0.60 –0.03 0.20

Getting outside and becoming active -0.02 0.61 0.04 –0.02

Vitamins and minerals 0.15 0.57 –0.24 0.22

Psychotherapy 0.21 0.08 0.63 0.00

Psychiatrist 0.10 –0.23 0.57 0.11

Deal alone with the situation 0.11 0.05 –0.53 0.13

Psychologist –0.13 0.21 0.55 –0.05

Psychiatric hospital 0.27 –0.32 0.51 0.24

Telephone counselling –0.02 0.01 0.04 0.66

Priest –0.04 0.15 0.04 0.57

Social worker –0.03 0.22 0.02 0.54

GP –0.01 –0.01 –0.04 0.34

ECT 0.22 –0.25 –0.14 0.29

Explained variance 12.31% 10.74% 10.32% 7.97%

a = 0.55). Using multiple regression analysis, we identified Table 3 presents the multiple regression analyses of the 4 fac-
covarying predictors of the different treatment recommenda- tors extracted by a factor analysis. Pharmacologic recommen-
tion scales (Tables 3 and 4). dations were correlated with more social distance, a more
rigid personality, a positive attitude toward psycho-
pharmacology, and having contact with mentally ill people.
The explained variance (adj) is 6.3%. The following variables
Results
were associated with therapeutic recommendations (R²[adj] =
Table 1 shows the percentage of proposals for the total sam- 0.182): a positive attitude toward psychopharmacology, rec-
ple (n = 1737). The suggestions mentioned most often were ognizing that the person described is mentally ill, younger
visiting a psychologist, visiting a GP, getting outside and age, keeping more social distance toward people with a men-
becoming active, and visiting a psychiatrist. Among the tradi- tal illness, having contact with people with mental illness,
tional psychiatric treatment approaches, 45% recommended female sex, and being presented with the schizophrenia
psychotherapy. Other psychiatric standard treatment meth- vignette. Those with a negative attitude toward
ods, such as psychopharmacology, psychiatric hospitaliza- psychopharmacology, those who were presented with the
tion, and ECT, were less favoured; only 23% or less of the depression vignette (the â-value is negative), and those who
respondents chose these suggestions. Sixty-five percent of the did not correctly recognize the case described favoured alter-
interviewees considered “dealing alone with the situation” to native suggestions. The explained variance (adj) is 9.9%.
be harmful. Moreover, respondents especially warned of Respondents with a higher education and those who correctly
hypnotics and sedatives and, to a lower extent, antidepres- identified the mental illness presented did not favour social
sants and antipsychotics. recommendations (R²[adj] = 0.020).

748
W Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005
 Lay Beliefs About Treatments for People With Mental Illness and Their Implications for Antistigma Strategies

Table 3 Beta of the multiple regression analysis on treatment recommendations (n = 774)

Pharmacologic Therapeutic Alternative Social

Age 0.070 –.0150*** –0.015 0.058

Education –0.024 0.045 –0.071* –0.079*

Female sex 0.009 0.100** 0.061 0.045

Vignette (schizophrenia) –0.038 0.090* –0.138*** 0.002

Case perceived as mentally ill 0.074 0.196*** –0.097* –0.098*

Positive attitude toward 0.110** 0.196*** –0.205*** –0.023

psychopharmacology

Social distance 0.118** 0.132*** –0.039 –0.039

Contact with mentally ill 0.080* 0.129*** –0.012 0.007

Rigidity 0.114** –0.002 –0.005 0.056

R (adjusted)
2
0.063*** 0.182*** 0.099*** 0.020**

*P £ 0.05; ** P £ 0.01; *** P £ 0.001

Table 4 Beta value of the multiple regression analysis on treatment recommendations (n = 774)

Therapeutic vs alternative or social Pharmacologic or therapeutic vs alternative or social

Age –0.105** –0.050

Education 0.098** 0.069*

Sex (female) 0.008 0.011

Vignette (schizophrenia) 0.128*** 0.086*

Case perceived as mentally ill 0.210*** 0.215***

Positive attitude toward 0.238*** 0.258***

psychopharmacology

Social distance 0.116** 0.161***

Contact with mentally ill 0.080* 0.110***

Rigidity –0.022 0.044

R2 (adjusted) 0.208*** 0.222***

*P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001

Table 4 demonstrates the regression analyses of the Discussion

2 summative indexes. The explained variance, as well as most
significant variables, are similar in both models: higher edu- From a professional perspective, it is important to know
cation, a positive attitude toward psychopharmacology, rec- whether the general population holds opinions that are in line
ognition of the person depicted as being ill, being shown the with evidence-based knowledge (that is, whether the public’s
vignette depicting schizophrenia, keeping more social dis- mental health literacy is satisfactory). This study helps to find
tance from people with a mental illness, and having contact underlying factors that explain why people recommend a par-
with people with mental illness are common positive ticular treatment for mental illness. Thus it may help clarify
predictors. the question of whether a medical model should be favoured

Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005 W 749

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry—Original Research

in the public discourse. The results of this analysis can be variables in a regression analysis and to be able to explain a
summarized as follows: considerable part of the variance.
· Laypeople recommended therapists, for example,
psychologists, GPs, and psychiatrists, rather than Comparison With the Literature
therapeutic methods for people affected by mental illness. The results presented here are a further development of our
own research and of studies done by others (see 9,13). The
· By means of a factor analysis, the treatment descriptive data confirm previous findings that the public rec-
recommendations can be summarized into 4 groups: ommends therapies depending on the case depicted, that is,
psychopharmacological proposals, therapeutic
more medical treatments for people affected by schizophrenia
counselling, alternative suggestions, and social advice.
than for those with depression are recommended, and psycho-
· The model best predicting treatment recommendations is therapy predominates over other psychiatric therapeutic
therapeutic counselling, which comprised the use of a methods.
psychologist or psychiatrist, not dealing alone with the
situation, psychiatric hospitalization, and psychotherapy Treatment Recommendations Are Organized in Coherent
(R²[adj] = 0.182). This model is explained by a positive Systems
attitude toward psychopharmacology, correct recognition The factor analysis revealed that the public’s beliefs are orga-
of the person in the vignette as being ill, younger age, and nized into 4 coherent systems, each with typical beliefs about
keeping more social distance from or having contact with helpful interventions for people with mental illness. Two
people with mental illness. The other 3 models groups (the therapeutic and pharmacologic suggestions)
(alternative, pharmacologic, and social) had a much lower involve evidence-based treatments, whereas social and alter-
explained variance.
native proposals include ideas that are not evidence-based.
· Medical treatments for mental illness were favoured by However, the discussion of these social and alternative belief
people with a positive attitude toward systems is hampered by the partly explained, small variance of
psychopharmacology, who recognized the illness of the the various regression models applied. Explanations in addi-
person described, who were presented with the tion to medical and pharmacologic treatment suggestions are
schizophrenia vignette, who kept more social distance, needed and would allow for the formulation of strategies that
who had a higher education, and who had contact with target individuals who favour the respective proposals. Thus
people with mental illness.
the subsequent discussion focuses on the 2 summative
indices.
Weaknesses and Strengths of This Survey
Before the results are interpreted, some methodological limi- Improving Mental Health Literacy at What Price?
tations of this survey should be acknowledged. First, this The results with respect to the medical treatment recommen-
study highlights general problems with research on public dations are controversial. Those who favoured medical treat-
attitudes, for example, the tendency to include communicative ment proposals were influenced by adequate mental health
and cooperative respondents who tend to answer according to literacy, that is, a positive attitude toward psycho-
social desirability. Thus we chose telephone interviews, pharmacology, correct identification of the vignette, a higher
which are considered superior to face-to-face interviews in education, and more contact with mentally ill people. This
terms of confidentiality and social desirability (24). Second, model would imply that the public’s mental health literacy
attitudes should not be mistaken for actual interpersonal needs improvement. Conversely, a positive attitude toward
behaviour but should be considered a proxy measure of social medical treatment proposals is simultaneously linked to more
behaviour (25). Further, different studies revealed a close social distance toward people with mental illness.
relation between attitudes and subsequent behaviour (14).
Our results suggest that greater social distance from people
Third, the response rate was only 63%; however, this rate is in
with mental illness is the price to be paid for better mental
line with other public opinion surveys (see 11), and it must be
health literacy. A possible interpretation of this finding might
taken into consideration that no incentives for participation
be that social distance from people with mental illness is an
were given. Finally, as the linear regression analysis does not
expression of helplessness toward those affected. One sign of
allow any missing values, we lost 94 respondents from the
this helplessness is the rejection of mentally ill people.
original subsample (n = 868) owing to missing answers.
Another sign might be trying to help people with mental ill-
Nonetheless, some strengths of this analysis should be men-
ness, for example, by accepting or recommending proven
tioned. This representative sample allowed us to draw a clear
treatment methods.
picture of public attitudes toward treatment recommendations
for mental illness. To our knowledge, this is the first study to These results lead to a contrasting procedure: either improve
include diverse demographic, psychological, and sociological mental health literacy with the consequence of more social

750
W Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005
 Lay Beliefs About Treatments for People With Mental Illness and Their Implications for Antistigma Strategies

8. Jorm AF, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Christensen H, Henderson S. Attitudes

distance from those affected or promote a nonmedical under- towards people with a mental disorder: a survey of the Australian public and
standing of treating mental disorders with the result of less health professionals. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1999;33:77– 83.
9. Lauber C, Nordt C, Falcato L, Rossler W. Lay recommendations on how to treat
social distance. Neither alternative is in line with current mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2001;36:553– 6.
antistigma campaigns. 10. Parker G, Mahendran R, Yeo SG, Loh MI, Jorm AF. Diagnosis and treatment of
mental disorders: a survey of Singapore mental health professionals. Soc
Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1999;34:555–63.
Implications for Further Antistigma Endeavours 11. Jorm AF, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Rodgers B, Pollitt P, Christensen H, and
others. Helpfulness of interventions for mental disorders: beliefs of health
First, these findings show that the public’s attitude is not as professionals compared with the general public. Br J Psychiatry 1997;171:233–7.
logical and clear-cut as might be expected. Thus it is a difficult 12. Jorm AF, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Rodgers B, Pollitt P. Beliefs about the
helpfulness of interventions for mental disorders: a comparison of general
task to find strategies that could have an impact on stigmatiz- practitioners, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Aust N Z J Psychiatry
ing attitudes. Further, our results suggest that improving men- 1997;31:844–51.
13. Jorm AF, Christensen H, Medway J, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Rodgers B. Public
tal health literacy may have the disadvantage of increasing belief systems about the helpfulness of interventions for depression: associations
with history of depression and professional help-seeking. Soc Psychiatry
social distance toward people with mental illness. Thus strate- Psychiatr Epidemiol 2000;35:211–9.
gies to enhance positive attitudes and better knowledge, for 14. Jorm AF, Medway J, Christensen H, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Rodgers B. Public
beliefs about the helpfulness of interventions for depression: effects on actions
example, by education or through contact with mentally ill taken when experiencing anxiety and depression symptoms. Aust N Z J
people (26,27), must be carefully evaluated against the back- Psychiatry 2000;34:619–26.
15. Magliano L, Fiorillo A, De Rosa C, Malangone C, Maj M. Beliefs about
ground of the findings presented here. Finally, more research schizophrenia in Italy: a comparative nationwide survey of the general public,
mental health professionals, and patients’ relatives. Can J Psychiatry
is needed to clarify the relation between social distance and 2004;49:322–30.
knowledge about treatment methods or, more generally, 16. Magliano L, De Rosa C, Fiorillo A, Malangone C, Maj M. Perception of
patients’ unpredictability and beliefs on the causes and consequences of
mental disorders. schizophrenia–a community survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol
2004;39:410–6.
17. Jorm AF, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Christensen H, Rodgers B, Pollitt P. Mental
Funding and Support health literacy: a survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders and
This study was exclusively supported by the Swiss National their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Med J Aust 1997;166:182–6.
18. Kish L. A procedure for objective respondent selection within households. J Am
Science Foundation (grant number 32-52571.97). Stat Assoc 1949;44:380–7.
19. Angermeyer MC, Daumer R, Matschinger H. Benefits and risks of psychotropic
medication in the eyes of the general public: results of a survey in the Federal
Acknowledgement Republic of Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry 1993;26:114–20.
We thank Luis Falcato, who helped design this study and who 20. Lauber C, Nordt C, Sartorius N, Falcato L, Rössler W. Public acceptance of
restrictions on mentally ill people. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2000;102:26–32.
collected the data. We thank Jacinta Miio for her help in the 21. Lauber C, Nordt C, Falcato L, Rössler W. Factors influencing social distance
linguistic improvement of this paper. toward people with mental illness. Community Ment Health J 2004;40:265–74.
22. Krampen G. Behavioral Rigidity. [ZUMA-Manual for scales in social sciences].
Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften; 1983.
References 23. Lauber C, Nordt C, Falcato L, Rössler W. Can a seizure help? The public’s
attitude toward ECT. Psychiatry Res 2005;134:205–9.
24. Frey JH, Mertens Oishi S. How to conduct interviews by telephone and in
1. Penn DL, Kohlmaier JR, Corrigan PW. Interpersonal factors contributing to the
person. London: Sage; 1995.
stigma of schizophrenia: social skills, perceived attractiveness, and symptoms.
25. Penn DL, Corrigan PW. The effects of stereotype suppression on psychiatric
Schizophr Res 2000;45:37– 45.
stigma. Schizophr Res 2002;55:269–76.
2. Kadri N, Manoudi F, Berrada S, Moussaoui D. Stigma impact on Moroccan
26. Corrigan PW, River LP, Lundin RK, Penn DL, Uphoff-Wasowski K, Campion J,
families of patients with schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry 2004;49:625–9.
and others. Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness.
3. Gaebel W, Baumann A, Witte AM, Zaeske H. Public attitudes towards people Schizophr Bull 2001;27:187–95.
with mental illness in six German cities: results of a public survey under special 27. Gaebel W, Baumann AE. Interventions to reduce the stigma associated with
consideration of schizophrenia. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci severe mental illness: experiences from the open the doors program in Germany.
2002;252:278 –87. Can J Psychiatry 2003;48:657–62.
4. Thompson AH, Stuart H, Bland RC, Arboleda-Florez J, Warner R, Dickson RA,
and others. Attitudes about schizophrenia from the pilot site of the WPA
worldwide campaign against the stigma of schizophrenia. Soc Psychiatry
Psychiatr Epidemiol 2002;37:475– 82. Manuscript received May 2004, revised, and accepted February 2005.
5. Crisp AH, Gelder MG, Rix S, Meltzer HI, Rowlands OJ. Stigmatisation of 1
Consultant, Department of Social and Clinical Psychiatry, Psychiatric
people with mental illnesses. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177:4 –7. University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
6. Benkert O, Graf-Morgenstern M, Hillert A, Sandmann J, Ehmig SC, 2
Research Assistant, Department of Social and Clinical Psychiatry,
Weissbecker H, and others. Public opinion on psychotropic drugs: an analysis of
the factors influencing acceptance or rejection. J Nerv Ment Dis
Psychiatric University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
3
1997;185:151– 8. Head of Department, Department of Social and Clinical Psychiatry,
7. Jorm AF, Korten AE, Rodgers B, Pollitt P, Jacomb PA, Christensen H, and Psychiatric University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
others. Belief systems of the general public concerning the appropriate Address for correspondence: Dr C Lauber, Psychiatric Univeristy
treatments for mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Hospital, Militärstrasse 8, PO Box 1930, CH-8021 Zurich, Switzerland
1997;32:468 –73. e-mail: christoph.lauber@puk.zh.ch

Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005 W 751

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry—Original Research

Résume : Les croyances populaires sur les traitements pour les personnes souffrant de
maladie mentale et les implications pour les stratégies anti-stigmates
Objectif : Premièrement, décrire les facteurs influençant l’attitude du public à l’endroit des
recommandations de traitement pour les personnes souffrant de maladie mentale; deuxièmement,
identifier les systèmes de croyances cohérents sur l’utilité d’interventions spécifiques; et
troisièmement, discuter de la façon d’améliorer les connaissances en santé mentale et les stratégies
anti-stigmates.
Méthode : Les participants d’une enquête téléphonique représentative de la population générale (n =
1 737) ont pris connaissance d’un scénario décrivant une personne souffrant soit de schizophrénie,
soit de dépression. D’après une liste de suggestions, on leur a demandé de recommander des
traitements pour cette personne. Nous avons groupé ces propositions à l’aide d’une analyse
factorielle, et utilisé les facteurs comme variables dépendantes dans une analyse de régression
logistique.
Résultats : Les suggestions de traitements sont résumées en 4 groupes, chacun caractérisant une
approche thérapeutique spécifique : 1) les propositions psychopharmacologiques (c’est-à-dire, des
médicaments psychotropes), 2) la consultation thérapeutique (avec un psychologue ou un psychiatre
ou par une psychothérapie), 3) des suggestions de médecine parallèle (comme l’homéopathie), et
4) des conseils sociaux (par exemple, d’un travailleur social). Les traitements médicaux étaient
proposés par les personnes qui avaient un niveau d’instruction élevé, et une attitude positive envers la
psychopharmacologie, qui reconnaissaient avec justesse que la personne décrite dans le scénario était
malade, à qui on avait présenté le scénario de la schizophrénie, qui gardent une distance sociale, et qui
ont des contacts avec des personnes souffrant de maladie mentale. Les variables pouvaient expliquer
les propositions de traitements sociaux et parallèles dans une faible mesure seulement.
Conclusions : Les croyances du public sur le traitement des personnes souffrant de maladie mentale
sont organisées en 4 systèmes cohérents, dont 2 parlent de traitements fondés sur des données
probantes. Les propositions de traitements médicaux sont influencées par une culture adéquate en
matière de santé mentale; cependant, elles sont aussi liées à une distance sociale accrue des personnes
souffrant de maladie mentale. En outre, il faut expliquer davantage et mieux les suggestions de
traitements non médicaux. Les implications pour les stratégies anti-stigmates sont présentées.

752
W Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 12, October 2005