Reductionism and physicalism.
The public don't like them much. They like them about as much as strong metaphysical determinism and the idea of having no free will.
That's a problem for marketing psychiatry and neuropsychology.
The physical, reductionist facts are not going away, however.
Perhaps a switch to emphasising the concept of supervenience would help?
Reductionism (structural, systemic, and physical, more than conceptual) says that psychological traits and maladaptions are reducible to physical brain systems, processes, and structure.
Supervenience is the soft-sell form of reductionism. (Don't tell any philosophers I said that, or you will get an annoying, pedantic argument.)
The definition of supervenience is that if one fiddles with variable X in system A, then variable Y in system B will always exhibit a predictable and specific change. System B is said to supervene upon system A.
This is handy for things like quantum entanglement. Since John Bell proved that Einstein's fears about spooky action at a distance are apparently well founded (there are apparently no hidden physical variables connecting two entangled, physically separate quantum systems unless someone finds some evidence to the contrary), one can't really deploy reductionism in the usual sense to talk about quantum system B's behaviour reducing to quantum system A's behaviour. However, one can happily blab on about quantum system B's behaviour supervening upon quantum system A's behaviour.
How does this help marketing-psychology-wise in psychiatry and psychology? I suggest that psychiatrists tell patients that emotion/behaviour/symptom X supervenes upon CNS fact(s) Y. When the patient asks, the psychiatrist can answer honestly and say: "It means we know that Y is always associated with and predicted by X, but we don't fully understand how."
'Fully' is the user friendly weasel word. It's honest. Try explaining the supervenience (or the reduction for that matter) to a naturally Pyrrhonist seven year old. You will keep getting "But, why?". You'll realise you are unable to explain absolutely everything, even though your physicalist, reductionist explanation is superb and would win a Nobel Prize for education in most cases.
Eventually, you're going to run out of reductionism. Best to start with the 'fully' weasel word and go with supervenience from the beginning?
