Assessment 1: Annotated Bibliography
Angermeyer, M. C., Holzinger, A., Carta, M. G. & Schomerus, G. (2011). Biogenetic explanations and public acceptance of mental illness: systematic review of population studies. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199, 367-372. Doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085563
This review aimed to assess whether the publics view of mental illness using biogenetic explanations was linked to more tolerant attitudes. The study also aimed to establish if responsibility for the illness was associated with rejection, by looking at the general publics desire for social distance.
A systematic review was taken of population studies that were conducted before the 30th June 2010, 33 studies were found to be relevant. The study can be considered strong as the results we screened by two independent researchers, and studies involving attitudes of subgroups were excluded. It is important to note however that as the studies were taken prior 2010 more recent research may be applicable.
The review found that there is no significant link between the biogenetic model and perceived responsibility. Further to this, the biogenetic model increases the view of people with mental illnesses being dangerous therefore making respondents want to increase their social distance. The study also shows having a medical association to mental illness is positively associated with increased psychiatric treatment.
This study is important to my argument as it highlights both positives and negatives associated with the biogenetic model. It also briefly addresses the idea of structural discrimination being positively influenced by the biogenetic model.
Deacon, B. J. (2013). The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 846-861. Doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.007
This paper aimed to critically evaluate the biomedical model of mental illness, it addressed the facts that using the biomedical model as an explanation has increased the use of psychiatric medications as well as funding into research. With the funding being focused on the biomedical model other alternative views are receiving less funding.
The author identifies that despite the biomedical model being widely accepted by psychologists, scientists are yet to identify reliable biomarkers for any mental disorders. Added to this fact there is no evidence to support using medication to treat neurotransmitter imbalances are effective.
The findings also show that despite the prevalence of the biomedical model within the field there has been a lack of promised innovation and mental health outcomes are considered to be poor. The paper calls for a critical dialog to take place to further understand mental illnesses and address the issues currently associated with the biomedical model.
This paper is important to my argument as it outlines the positives and negatives to the biological model, shedding light on ...
