Case Study: White Australian Male

Case Study: White Australian Male
Purpose:Analyze and apply critical thinking skills in the psychopathology of mental health patients and provide treatment and health promotion while applying evidence-based research.Scenario:A 44-year-old white Australian man who was not religious was referred to outpatient psychiatric treatment. He had been playing with an Ouija board for two months when he started to believe that a spirit had entered his body through his rectum and was controlling him. He thought the spirit made him move and speak in a certain way.
He sought help from a local church, where he was told it was a psychiatric problem and that he was not really possessed. Two exorcisms at a local church failed to achieve any improvement.
Questions:Remember to answer these questions from your textbooks and NP guidelines. At all times, explain your answers.
Discuss the relationship between mental illness and religion.
Is this classified as psychopathology? Support your response using DSM5 criteria.
Submission Instructions:
Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources. Your initial post is worth 8 points.
You should respond to at least two of your peers by extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts. Your reply posts are worth 2 points (1 point per response.)
All replies must be constructive and use literature where possible.
Please post your initial response by 11:59 PM ET Thursday, and comment on the posts of two classmates by 11:59 PM ET Sunday.
Late work policies, expectations regarding proper citations, acceptable means of responding to peer feedback, and other expectations are at the discretion of the instructor.
You can expect feedback from the instructor within 48 to 72 hours from the Sunday due date.

Grading Rubric
Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.
Discussion RubricCriteriaRatingsPointsIdentification of Main Issues, Problems, and ConceptsDistinguished – 4 pointsPost is substantively accurate. Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Provides exceptional and thought-provoking analysis that directly addresses details and/or examples of the main topic.Excellent – 3 pointsPost is mostly related to the topic. Demonstrates understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. It provides some supporting details and/or examples. Analyses not as clear as they could be.Fair – 1-2 pointsDemonstrates limited understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. No details and/or examples are given.Poor – 0 pointsPost is off-topic, incorrect and/or irrelevant to the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Analyses are not well organized or clear.4 pointsAPA Formatting GuidelinesDistinguished – 2 pointsThe reference page contains at least the required current scholarly academic reference and text reference. Follows APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations.Excellent – 1 pointThe reference page contains one current scholarly academic resource and text reference. Follows most APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations.Fair – 0.5 pointsThe reference page contains one current or outdated scholarly academic resource. Many errors of APA guidelines: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations.Poor – 0 pointsThe reference page contains no current scholarly academic resources, only internet web pages, or no reference page. Lack of APA guidelines for references provided or in-text citations.2 pointsWriting MechanicsDistinguished – 2 pointsRules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling is correct.Excellent – 1 pointFew grammatical errors, but sentences could be clearer and more precise.Fair – 0.5 pointsThe paper contains a few grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors.Poor – 0 pointsThe paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors.2 pointsResponse to Posts of PeersDistinguished – 2 pointsConstructively responded to two other posts and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal to each.Fair – 1 pointConstructively responded to one other post and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal.Poor – 0 pointsProvided no response to a peer’s post.
2 pointsTotal Points 10