Mind-Body dualism and medical student attitudes toward mental illness in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Philosophical beliefs regarding the origin of mental illness may underlie resistance to psychiatric treatment and affect attitudes toward the mentally ill. AIM: The present study sought to: (1) identify characteristics of medical students who hold mind-brain dualism (MBD) beliefs and (2) determine relationships between MBD beliefs and perceptions of mental illnesses. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that asked medical students questions about mind-brain beliefs and religiosity. Three fictitious vignettes (schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder [APD], and depression) were presented and then students asked about how much participants felt the patients in these scenarios bore responsibility for their illness. A MBD score was calculated to measure MBD beliefs, and a total responsibility score (RS) was used to measure patient blameworthiness. Mediation analysis was used to examine whether MBD beliefs explained the relationship between religiosity and perceived patient responsibility for their illness, and whether this was moderated by gender. RESULTS: < .001). Religiosity was positively correlated with RS, a relationship that was mediated by MBD in all three vignettes. CONCLUSION: Mind-brain dualism beliefs among medical students in Saudi Arabia were associated with greater perceptions of self-infliction, preventability, controllability, and blameworthiness for patients with mental illness, moderated by gender. Greater emphasis on the neurobiological aspects of psychiatric disorders might help to change this attitude.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".