Religion in therapy becomes hard to discuss. Research shows that most mental health professionals think religion and spirituality are important, but the majority of the have received little to no training on how to engage with them in a clinical setting.
In a national study of mental health professionals by Cassandra Vieten, she found that:
- 73-94% of psychologists agree that they should receive training for competence in religion/spirituality.
- 52-81% received little or no training.
- 30-59% reported they received no training at all.
This utter lack of preparation creates confusion and discomfort for staff when dealing with spirituality in therapeutic settings.
Cindy Schmidt conducted a study of medical students encountering a simulated clinical case of Orthodox Judaism. This was conducted because most seriously ill patients use their religion/spirituality to cope with their illness, so prospective doctors who are going to deal with sick patients should know how to support them. There is a focus on Orthodox Judaism becuase many of these students were going to be stationed in a predominantly Orthodox Jewish community. Schmidt found out that:
- Students who have a religious background felt more comfortable discussing religion.
- Students without training felt unsure about boundaries, wondering whether they are even allowed to discuss religion at all.
- Many feared they would accidentally cross the boundary between being a student doctor and being a chaplain.
This study reinforces the importance of explicit and thorough religion/spirituality training.
Thinking about this using a Mad Studies framework, the lack of training can be interpreted as a form of power that shapes what ways of knowing are considered legitimate in clinical settings. When doctors avoid religion due to feelings of discomfort, they assert the secular authority that oppresses religious outlooks, determining what topics are acceptable within therapeutic settings. This dynamic can silence patients’ spiritual truths, frame religious coping as irrelevant, and pressure people to translate spiritually meaningful experiences into clinical terms. This reflects processes of normalization on control, where certain ways of making meaning are privileged while others are excluded, shaping how patients are understood and treated within these systems.
Sources:
Schmidt, Cindy, Joseph Eickmeyer, Meghan Henningsen, Alexander Weber, Amanda Pleimann, and Seth Koehler. 2020. “Medical Students’ Personal Experiences, Religion, and Spirituality Explain Their (Dis)Comfort with a Patient’s Religious Needs.” Canadian Medical Education Journal, March. doi:https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.69217.
Vieten, Cassandra, Holly K. Oxhandler, Michelle Pearce, Nina Fry, Chloe Tanega, and Kenneth Pargament. 2023. “Mental Health Professionals’ Perspectives on the Relevance of Religion and Spirituality to Mental Health Care.” ProQuest 11 (1): 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01466-y.