BELIEFS ABOUT THE HELPFULNESS OF INTERVENTIONS FOR MENTAL-DISORDERS -A COMPARISON OF GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS, PSYCHIATRISTS AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess hearth professionals' b eliefs about the helpfulness of a broad range of possible intervention s for mental disorders. Method: The study involved a postal survey of 872 general practitioners (GPs), 1128 psychiatrists and 454 clinical p sychologists. These hearth practitioners were presented with a vignett e describing either a person with schizophrenia or one with depression . The vignettes were taken from an earlier survey of the general publi c. Respondents were asked to rate the likely helpfulness of various ty pes of professional and non-professional help and of pharmacological a nd non-pharmacological interventions. Results: Two-thirds or more of e ach profession agreed that the person with schizophrenia would be help ed by GPs, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, antipsychotic agents and admission to a psychiatric ward. Similarly, two-thirds agreed tha t the person with depression would be helped by GPs, psychiatrists, cl inical psychologists, antidepressants, counselling and cognitive-behav ioural therapy. However, there were also areas of disagreement. Psychi atrists were less likely than GPs and clinical psychologists to rate p sychological and lifestyle interventions as helpful, while clinical ps ychologists were less likely to rate specifically medical intervention s as helpful. Younger members of the professional groups and female me mbers (who also tended to be younger) tended to rate a wider range of interventions for each disorder as likely to be helpful.Conclusions: D espite areas of broad agreement about treatment, health practitioners were more likely to endorse the interventions associated with their ow n profession. However, younger members of each profession tended take a broader view. If these age differences represent a cohort effect, he alth professionals may in the future show greater acceptance of the he lpfulness of interventions offered outside their profession. These con clusions are limited by the methodology of the survey, which involved a questionnaire designed for the public rather than professionals.