View in EDS

Clinicians' attitudes to evolutionary versus genetic explanations for anxiety: cluster-randomised study of stigmatisation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Clinicians' attitudes to evolutionary versus genetic explanations for anxiety: cluster-randomised study of stigmatisation.
Authors: Hunt, Adam D. (AUTHOR), Carpenter, Tom (AUTHOR), Brar, Gurjot (AUTHOR), Katiyar, Tanay (AUTHOR), Al-Shawaf, Laith (AUTHOR), Gillett, George (AUTHOR), Chaudhary, Nikhil (AUTHOR), Boyle, Diarmuid (AUTHOR), Butler, Matt (AUTHOR), Das, Agnish (AUTHOR), de Blaquiere, Bruno (AUTHOR), Eaton, Anna (AUTHOR), Golchinheydari, Sirous (AUTHOR), Griffin, Benjamin (AUTHOR), Ibrahim, Baher (AUTHOR), Ionita, Simona (AUTHOR), Jalal, Umer (AUTHOR), Kamran, Muhammad (AUTHOR), Kelly, Martha (AUTHOR), O'Connell, Henry (AUTHOR)
Source: British Journal of Psychiatry. Jun2026, Vol. 228 Issue 6, p539-547. 9p.
Subjects: Attitudes of medical personnel, Evolutionary theories, Treatment programs, Mental health education, Heredity, Anxiety, Attitude change (Psychology), Social stigma
Abstract: Background: Explanatory frameworks for mental disorders influence stigmatisation and clinical attitudes. Mechanistic biological explanations often yield negative effects on prognostic optimism and empathy. Evolutionary framings might reduce stigma, but this has rarely been tested empirically. Aims: To experimentally test whether a brief educational intervention presenting an evolutionary explanation of anxiety, compared with a genetic explanation, would influence clinicians' attitudes in directions consistent with anti-stigma goals. Method: In this pre-registered, multi-site, cluster-randomised trial, 171 practising mental health clinicians across the UK and Ireland were randomised by session to receive a 30 min educational presentation on either evolutionary or genetic explanations for anxiety. Pre- and post-session questionnaires assessed clinicians' optimism regarding patient recovery, perceived efficacy of psychosocial interventions, expected patient willingness to share diagnosis and seek help and perceived usefulness of the information. Data were analysed using Bayesian cumulative ordinal regression models. Results: In line with pre-registered hypotheses, clinicians rated evolutionary explanations as substantially more useful for patients (odds ratio 5.05, 95% credible interval [2.46, 10.28], latent standard deviation shift 1.07) and for clinicians (odds ratio 3.10, 95% credible interval [1.62, 5.81], latent standard deviation shift 0.76) compared with genetic explanations. Evolutionary explanations also resulted in higher anticipated public willingness to seek psychiatric help (odds ratio 1.79, 95% credible interval [0.93, 3.35]) and share a diagnosis (odds ratio 1.62, 95% credible interval [0.88, 2.97]); optimism about patient recovery (odds ratio 1.58, 95% credible interval [0.71, 3.46]); perceived effectiveness of psychosocial interventions (odds ratio 1.62, 95% credible interval [0.84, 3.10]); and belief in the functional usefulness of negative emotions (β = 0.25 s.d., 95% credible interval [0.01, 0.49]). These effects were driven by both positive pre–post effects of evolutionary education and negative pre–post effects of genetic education compared with pre-education baseline. Exploratory analysis showed further anti-stigma effects. Conclusions: Framing anxiety through an evolutionary lens substantially improved clinicians' attitudes on various measures of stigmatisation compared with genetic explanations, and was rated as highly useful for both clinicians and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of British Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Background: Explanatory frameworks for mental disorders influence stigmatisation and clinical attitudes. Mechanistic biological explanations often yield negative effects on prognostic optimism and empathy. Evolutionary framings might reduce stigma, but this has rarely been tested empirically. Aims: To experimentally test whether a brief educational intervention presenting an evolutionary explanation of anxiety, compared with a genetic explanation, would influence clinicians' attitudes in directions consistent with anti-stigma goals. Method: In this pre-registered, multi-site, cluster-randomised trial, 171 practising mental health clinicians across the UK and Ireland were randomised by session to receive a 30 min educational presentation on either evolutionary or genetic explanations for anxiety. Pre- and post-session questionnaires assessed clinicians' optimism regarding patient recovery, perceived efficacy of psychosocial interventions, expected patient willingness to share diagnosis and seek help and perceived usefulness of the information. Data were analysed using Bayesian cumulative ordinal regression models. Results: In line with pre-registered hypotheses, clinicians rated evolutionary explanations as substantially more useful for patients (odds ratio 5.05, 95% credible interval [2.46, 10.28], latent standard deviation shift 1.07) and for clinicians (odds ratio 3.10, 95% credible interval [1.62, 5.81], latent standard deviation shift 0.76) compared with genetic explanations. Evolutionary explanations also resulted in higher anticipated public willingness to seek psychiatric help (odds ratio 1.79, 95% credible interval [0.93, 3.35]) and share a diagnosis (odds ratio 1.62, 95% credible interval [0.88, 2.97]); optimism about patient recovery (odds ratio 1.58, 95% credible interval [0.71, 3.46]); perceived effectiveness of psychosocial interventions (odds ratio 1.62, 95% credible interval [0.84, 3.10]); and belief in the functional usefulness of negative emotions (β = 0.25 s.d., 95% credible interval [0.01, 0.49]). These effects were driven by both positive pre–post effects of evolutionary education and negative pre–post effects of genetic education compared with pre-education baseline. Exploratory analysis showed further anti-stigma effects. Conclusions: Framing anxiety through an evolutionary lens substantially improved clinicians' attitudes on various measures of stigmatisation compared with genetic explanations, and was rated as highly useful for both clinicians and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00071250
DOI:10.1192/bjp.2026.10615