Assessing Acceptability of the Term: “Psychopathology” Among Youth Aged 18–25
A prevailing model for mental health care for youth and families is to provide services within a “psychopathology” focused framework. This approach can compound problems for youth by imparting negative labels on them, and may be associated with iatrogenic impacts of interventions (e.g., stigmatization, lowered self-efficacy, dependency). This study assessed perceptions of the term “psychopathology” among 486 youth aged 18–25, with 39% of these youth receiving prior mental health services. Results indicated statistically significant differences in perception of the term, with youth who had received mental health services perceiving it more negatively than youth who had not. Findings suggest receipt of mental health services among young people may sensitize them to negative aspects of the term psychopathology, indicating the need for caution in using this term and other terms that may have negative impacts on mental health service use among youth.
KeywordsYouth Mental health services Stigmatizing language Psychopathology
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Research Involving with Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
- Jacobs, M., Downie, H., Kidd, G., Fitzsimmons, L., Gibbs, S., & Melville, C. (2015). Mental health services for children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A review of research on experiences of service users and providers. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.Google Scholar