Psychiatrists’ attitudes to professional boundaries concerning spirituality and religion: mixed-methods study
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Electronic versions
Documents
- psychiatrists-attitudes-to-professional-boundaries-concerning-spirituality-and-religion-mixed-methods-study
Final published version, 469 KB, PDF document
Licence: CC BY Show licence
DOI
Aims and method
Calls for the integration of spirituality into psychiatric practice have raised concerns about boundary violations. We sought to develop a method to capture psychiatrists’ attitudes to professional boundaries and spirituality, explore consensus and understand what factors are considered. Case vignettes were developed, tested and refined. Three vignettes were presented to 80 mental health professionals (53% said they were psychiatrists; 39% did not identify their professional status). Participants recorded their reactions to the vignettes. Four researchers categorised these as identifying boundary violations or not and analysed the factors considered.
Results
In 90% of cases, at least three of the four researchers agreed on classification (boundary violation; possible boundary violation; no boundary violation). Participants’ opinion about boundary violations was heterogeneous. There was consensus that psychiatrists should not proselytise in clinical settings. Reasoning emphasised pragmatic concerns. Few participants mentioned their religious beliefs. Equivocation was common.
Clinical implications
Mental health professionals seem unsure about professional boundaries concerning religion and spirituality in psychiatric practice.
Calls for the integration of spirituality into psychiatric practice have raised concerns about boundary violations. We sought to develop a method to capture psychiatrists’ attitudes to professional boundaries and spirituality, explore consensus and understand what factors are considered. Case vignettes were developed, tested and refined. Three vignettes were presented to 80 mental health professionals (53% said they were psychiatrists; 39% did not identify their professional status). Participants recorded their reactions to the vignettes. Four researchers categorised these as identifying boundary violations or not and analysed the factors considered.
Results
In 90% of cases, at least three of the four researchers agreed on classification (boundary violation; possible boundary violation; no boundary violation). Participants’ opinion about boundary violations was heterogeneous. There was consensus that psychiatrists should not proselytise in clinical settings. Reasoning emphasised pragmatic concerns. Few participants mentioned their religious beliefs. Equivocation was common.
Clinical implications
Mental health professionals seem unsure about professional boundaries concerning religion and spirituality in psychiatric practice.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | BJPsych Bulletin |
Early online date | 23 Aug 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 23 Aug 2023 |
Total downloads
No data available