Rom medical sources and exhibit higher levels of compliance than the patients who hold non-medical beliefs (113). Given that most of the Turkish immigrants in MK-8742 cost Europe came from (more) traditional rural areas of Turkey, were poorly integrated, and had a strong commitment to the extended family and social milieu (114), one can argue that the reluctance to seek professional help, premature treatment termination, and low treatment adherence can be attributed to such cultural variations in conceptualizations of mental illness. Although there is considerable evidence demonstrating culturally diverse attributions among Turkish patients regarding the cause of illness, the link to their choice for treatment providers was poorly investigated. To this end, a recent study investigated the LY2510924 web ethnic differences in causal attributions for major depression and whether ethnicity or discrepant causal attributions are most relevant for treatment preferences (115). Turkish immigrant and German depressive patients were interviewed for their beliefs concerning the factors responsible for their health problems (causal attributions) and the appropriate source for help. The results revealed that both groups adopted social factors as causes of their condition. However, German patients were far more likely to name psychological and biomedical factors responsible for their health conditions than Turkish patients were. Concerning treatment, compared to Turkish patients, Germans were again far more likely to recommend professional treatment (e.g., psychotherapy, medication, psycho-education, alternative therapies like relaxation or ergo) as the most valuable tool for recovery. On the other hand, Turkish patients were more likely to recommend non-professional help sources (e.g., social support, self-initiation) than Germans were. Further, it has been shown that causal attributions (attribution to psychological and biological factors) mediate the relationship between ethnicity and the preference of professional treatment resources. That is to say, the difference between Turkish and German depressive patients concerning the preference for seeking professional help could be explained by the differences in their attributions concerning the causes of depression (predominance of psychological and biological attributions in German patients). In accordance with the view of Western medicine and according to most of the German patients, depression was regarded as a disease resulting from the malfunctioning of biological and/or psychological processes and aWHAT CAUSES DEPRESSION AND WHO CAN FIX IT?Kleinman’s Explanatory Model perspective has directed attention to eliciting the cognitive aspects of patients’ conceptualization of their illness to unravel the correlates of their choices for treatment and responses to clinical interventions (98). The Explanatory model concerns the patient’s understanding of the cause, severity, and prognosis of an illness (i.e., what is the cause? how serious is it?); the expected treatment (i.e., what can be done? who can heal it?); and how the illness affects his or her life. Causal attributions (i.e., attributions that patients make concerning the causes ofBalkir Neft et al. Depression Among Turkish Patients in EuropeArch Neuropsychiatr 2016; 53: 72-breakdown in the social realm, which requires professional treatment. In contrast, Turkish patients usually conceptualized depressive experience as social/life problems or emotional reactions to situat.Rom medical sources and exhibit higher levels of compliance than the patients who hold non-medical beliefs (113). Given that most of the Turkish immigrants in Europe came from (more) traditional rural areas of Turkey, were poorly integrated, and had a strong commitment to the extended family and social milieu (114), one can argue that the reluctance to seek professional help, premature treatment termination, and low treatment adherence can be attributed to such cultural variations in conceptualizations of mental illness. Although there is considerable evidence demonstrating culturally diverse attributions among Turkish patients regarding the cause of illness, the link to their choice for treatment providers was poorly investigated. To this end, a recent study investigated the ethnic differences in causal attributions for major depression and whether ethnicity or discrepant causal attributions are most relevant for treatment preferences (115). Turkish immigrant and German depressive patients were interviewed for their beliefs concerning the factors responsible for their health problems (causal attributions) and the appropriate source for help. The results revealed that both groups adopted social factors as causes of their condition. However, German patients were far more likely to name psychological and biomedical factors responsible for their health conditions than Turkish patients were. Concerning treatment, compared to Turkish patients, Germans were again far more likely to recommend professional treatment (e.g., psychotherapy, medication, psycho-education, alternative therapies like relaxation or ergo) as the most valuable tool for recovery. On the other hand, Turkish patients were more likely to recommend non-professional help sources (e.g., social support, self-initiation) than Germans were. Further, it has been shown that causal attributions (attribution to psychological and biological factors) mediate the relationship between ethnicity and the preference of professional treatment resources. That is to say, the difference between Turkish and German depressive patients concerning the preference for seeking professional help could be explained by the differences in their attributions concerning the causes of depression (predominance of psychological and biological attributions in German patients). In accordance with the view of Western medicine and according to most of the German patients, depression was regarded as a disease resulting from the malfunctioning of biological and/or psychological processes and aWHAT CAUSES DEPRESSION AND WHO CAN FIX IT?Kleinman’s Explanatory Model perspective has directed attention to eliciting the cognitive aspects of patients’ conceptualization of their illness to unravel the correlates of their choices for treatment and responses to clinical interventions (98). The Explanatory model concerns the patient’s understanding of the cause, severity, and prognosis of an illness (i.e., what is the cause? how serious is it?); the expected treatment (i.e., what can be done? who can heal it?); and how the illness affects his or her life. Causal attributions (i.e., attributions that patients make concerning the causes ofBalkir Neft et al. Depression Among Turkish Patients in EuropeArch Neuropsychiatr 2016; 53: 72-breakdown in the social realm, which requires professional treatment. In contrast, Turkish patients usually conceptualized depressive experience as social/life problems or emotional reactions to situat.
