ArticleCommunity mental health journal2024
A Comparative Study on Mental Disorder Conceptualization: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The WONE Index as a Multidimensional Assessment of Stress Resilience: A Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Playing the Admission Game: Young People and Their Parents Negotiating Access or Discharge to Adolescent Inpatient Mental Health Services.Journal of child and adolescent psychiatric nursing : official publication of the Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nurses, Inc · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The conceptualization of mental disorders varies among professionals, impacting diagnosis, treatment, and research. This cross-disciplinary study aimed to understand how various professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, medical students, philosophers, and social sciences experts, perceive mental disorders, their attitudes towards the disease status of certain mental states, and their emphasis on biological versus social explanatory attributions. A survey of 371 participants assessed their agreement on a variety of conceptual statements and the relative influence of biological or social explanatory attribution for different mental states. Our findings revealed a consensus on the need for multiple explanatory perspectives in understanding psychiatric conditions and the influence of social, cultural, moral, and political values on diagnosis and classification. Psychiatrists demonstrated balanced bio-social explanatory attributions for various mental conditions, indicating a potential shift from the biological attribution predominantly observed among medical students and residents in psychiatry. Further research into factors influencing these differing perspectives is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.