Concepts of madness in diverse settings: a qualitative study from the INTREPID project

BMC Psychiatry

Research Article

Vikram Patel¹  Alex Cohen¹  Helen Weiss¹  Oye Gureje²  Samuel Oyewusi²  Oluyomi Esan²  Gerard Hutchinson³  Maia Hibben³  Craig Morgan⁴  Robin Murray⁵  Rangaswamy Thara⁶  Ramachandran Padmavati⁶  Sujit John⁶ 

[1] Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK;Department of Psychiatry, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria;Department of Psychiatry, University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad;National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UK;Centre for Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK;Psychosis Studies Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK;National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, London, UK;Schizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India;

关键词: Psychosis;    Cross-cultural research;    India;    Nigeria;    Trinidad;    Explanatory models;    Help-seeking;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12888-016-1090-4

 received in 2016-02-08, accepted in 2016-10-25,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIn order to facilitate case identification of incident (untreated and recent onset) cases of psychosis and controls in three sites in India, Nigeria and Trinidad, we sought to understand how psychoses (or madness) were conceptualized locally. The evidence we gathered also contributes to a long history of research on concepts of madness in diverse settings.MethodsWe conducted focus group discussions and individual interviews to collect information about how informants in each site make sense of and respond to madness. A coding framework was developed and analyses of transcripts from the FGDs and interviews were conducted.ResultsAnalyses suggest the following: a) disturbed behaviors are the primary sign of madness; b) madness is attributed to a wide range of causes; and, c) responses to madness are dictated by cultural and pragmatic factors. These findings are congruent with similar research that has been conducted over the past 50 years.ConclusionsThe INTREPID research suggests that concepts about madness share similar features across diverse settings: a) terms for madness are often derived from a common understanding that involves disruptions in mental processes and capacities; b) madness is recognized mostly by disruptive behaviours or marked declines in functioning; c) causal attributions are varied; and, d) help-seeking is a complex process.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2016