In Western countries, professionals in mental health care (“professionals”) tend to be less religious than “consumers”. This qualitative study explores the meaning of this “religiosity gap” for professionals and consumers in mental health care. Both a regular, secular and a Christian clinic in the Netherlands participated in this study. Content analysis was applied to 35 consumer interviews and 18 interviews with professionals. Consumers reported negative experiences (e.g., perceived disrespect and a lack of confidence) and/or negative expectations (e.g., misunderstanding and misinterpretation) related to a religiosity gap. They also mentioned advantages of a “religiosity match”, like safety and confidence and appreciated professionals’ religious/spiritual self-disclosure. Professionals in secular care setting tended to avoid religion and spirituality. In both clinics, they tended to neutralise religious/spiritual differences and be reticent in self-disclosure. Professionals are recommended to recognise the relevance of a religiosity gap and to consider different strategies in approaching religion/spirituality.

As God representations are multi-facetted psychological processes regarding the personal meaning of God/the divine to the individual, this study examines how multiple aspects of God representations are configured within individuals belonging to a sample of psychiatric patients or a non-patient sample, and how these configurations are associated with mental health. By means of cluster analyses, three types of God representations were found: a Positive-Authoritative one, a Passive-Unemotional one, and, only among psychiatric patients, a Negative-Authoritarian one. Types of God representations were significantly related to affective state, as well as religious saliency and religious background. Patients with the negative type of God representation were more distressed and depressed, and Orthodox-Reformed patients reported significantly more negative types of God representations. This study demonstrates the value of a person-oriented approach, by showing that scale scores became especially meaningful in the context of the types, which enables more nuanced distinctions regarding subgroups.

This study examines religious/spiritual (R/S) care needs and their possible determinants among mental health patients in the Netherlands. Patients in a Christian (CC, n = 100) and a secular (SC, n = 101) mental health clinic completed a questionnaire. Analysis revealed three factors on the R/S care needs measure: (1) “R/S conversations,” (2) “R/S program and recovery,” and (3) “R/S similar outlook on life.” The presence of R/S care needs was predicted by the following: site (CC versus SC), R/S involvement, and religious strain. Most commonly, unmet R/S care needs were explanation about R/S and illness by the practitioner, prayer with a nurse, conversations about religious distress with a nurse, conversation when R/S conflicts with treatment, help in finding a congregation, and contact between chaplain and practitioner. “R/S similar outlook on life” was equally important to patients with and without R/S involvement. Patients appreciate a match in worldview with health professionals, either religious or secular.

Introduction: In the last decades, the attention for religion/spirituality (R/S) in mental health care (MHC) has considerably increased. However, patients’ preferences concerning R/S in treatment have not often been investigated. The aim of this study was to find out how patients in clinical multidisciplinary MHC want R/S to be addressed in their care. Methods: Thirty-five semi-structured interviews were carried out between September 2015 and July 2016 among patients in a secular and a Christian MHC in the Netherlands. Qualitative inductive content analysis was performed, using Atlas Ti. Results: Patients appreciated (1) individual R/S conversations between patients and care team members (mainly nurses), (2) a familiar R/S environment, (3) a special R/S program and (4) contact with their R/S network. Patients varied in their presentation of R/S care needs from (a) explicit, mostly in the Christian MHC, to (b) implicit, predominantly in the secular MHC, or showed (c) hidden R/S care needs. A non-acute stage of the illness and R/S affinity of the mental health professionals, were classified as possible conditions for addressing R/S. Discussion and implications for practice: Nurses are recommended to be aware of the diversity of patients’ R/S care needs. Actively addressing R/S may help in recognizing implicit or even hidden R/S care needs. Further considerations on whether and how to respond to patients’ R/S care needs would be justified.