Stigma blocks recovery from mental illness

Training for mental health professionals in responding to experienced and anticipated mental health-related discrimination (READ-MH): protocol for an international multisite feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Mental health and other health professionals working in mental health care may contribute to the experiences of stigma and discrimination among mental health service users but can also help reduce the impact of stigma on service users. However, few studies of interventions to equip such professionals to be anti-stigma agents took place in high-income countries. This study assesses the feasibility, potential effectiveness and costs of Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination training for health professionals working in mental health care (READ-MH) across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

This is an uncontrolled pre-post mixed methods feasibility study of READ-MH training at seven sites across five LMICs (China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal and Tunisia).

OUTCOME MEASURES

knowledge based on course content, attitudes to working to address the impact of stigma on service users and skills in responding constructively to service users' reports of discrimination. The training draws upon the evidence bases for stigma reduction, health advocacy and medical education and is tailored to sites through situational analyses. Its content, delivery methods and intensity were agreed upon through a consensus exercise with site research teams. READ-MH will be delivered to health professionals working in mental health care immediately after baseline data collection; outcome measures will be collected post-training and 3 months post-baseline, followed by qualitative data collection analysed using a combined deductive and inductive approach. Fidelity will be rated during the delivery of READ-MH, and data on training costs will be collected. Quantitative data will be assessed using generalised linear mixed models. Qualitative data will be evaluated by thematic analysis to identify feedback about the training methods and content, including the implementability of the knowledge and skills learned. Pooled and site-specific training costs per trainee and per session will be reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The training development used a participatory and contextualised approach. Evaluation design strengths include the diversity of settings, the use of mixed methods, the use of a skills-based measure and the knowledge and attitude measures aligned to the target population and training. Limitations are the uncertain generalisability of skills performance to routine care and the impact of COVID-19 restrictions at several sites limiting qualitative data collection for situational analyses.

Training for mental health professionals in responding to experienced and anticipated mental health related discrimination (READ-MH): protocol for an international multisite feasibility study

Background: Mental health and other health professionals working in mental health care may contribute to the experiences of stigma and discrimination among mental health service users, but can also help reduce the impact of stigma on service users. However the few studies of interventions to equip such professionals to be anti-stigma agents those took place in High-Income Countries. This study assesses the feasibility, potential effectiveness and costs of Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination training for health professionals working in mental health care (READ-MH) across Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Methods: This is an uncontrolled pre-post mixed methods feasibility study of READ-MH training at seven sites across five LMICs (China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Tunisia). Outcome measures: knowledge based on course content; attitudes to working to address the impact of stigma on service users; and skills in responding constructively to service users' reports of discrimination. The training draws upon the evidence bases for stigma reduction, health advocacy and medical education and is tailored to sites through situational analyses. Its content, delivery methods and intensity were agreed through a consensus exercise with site research teams. READ-MH will be delivered to health professionals working in mental health care immediately after baseline data collection; outcome measures will be collected post-training and three months post-baseline, followed by qualitative data collection. Fidelity will be rated during delivery of READ-MH, and data on training costs will be collected. Quantitative data will be assessed using generalised linear mixed models. Qualitative data will be evaluated by thematic analysis to identify feedback about the training methods and content, including the implementability of the knowledge and skills learned. Pooled and site-specific training costs per trainee and per session will be reported. Conclusions: The training development used a participatory and contextualized approach. Evaluation design strengths include the diversity of settings; the use of mixed methods; the use of a skills-based measure; and knowledge and attitude measures aligned to the target population and training. Limitations are the uncertain generalisability of skills performance to routine care, and the impact of COVID-19 restrictions at several sites limiting qualitative data collection for situational analyses.

How does familiarity impact the stigma of mental illness?

This paper reviews studies on familiarity of mental illness to determine the relationships that familiarity has with public stigma. We propose a U-shaped relationship between familiarity and stigma that includes the expected inverse distribution (greater familiarity leads to less public stigma) and a provocative, positive relationship (familiarity in some groups leads to worse public stigma). Note that despite many studies in this arena, the U-shaped curve is not definitively supported by existing research. We believe its value, however, lies as a heuristic for hypotheses development to better understand the relationship between familiarity and public stigma. After reviewing research, we focus on two roles that comprise the surprising positive relationship: nuclear family members and mental health service providers like clinical psychologists. We then review research that suggests burden and associative stigma might account for the positive relationship between these groups and stigma. We end by using these findings to propose directions for future research, including on the development and evaluation of anti-stigma approaches.

Public attitudes towards psychiatry and psychiatric treatment at the beginning of the 21st century: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys

Public attitudes towards psychiatry are crucial determinants of help-seeking for mental illness. It has been argued that psychiatry as a discipline enjoys low esteem among the public, and a "crisis" of psychiatry has been noted. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies examining public attitudes towards various aspects of psychiatric care. Our search in PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO and bibliographies yielded 162 papers based on population surveys conducted since 2000 and published no later than 2015. We found that professional help for mental disorders generally enjoys high esteem. While general practitioners are the preferred source of help for depression, mental health professionals are the most trusted helpers for schizophrenia. If respondents have to rank sources of help, they tend to favor mental health professionals, while open questions yield results more favorable to general practitioners. Psychiatrists and psychologists/psychotherapists are equally recommended for the treatment of schizophrenia, while for depression psychologists/psychotherapists are more recommended, at least in Europe and America. Psychotherapy is consistently preferred over medication. Attitudes towards seeking help from psychiatrists or psychologists/psychotherapists as well as towards medication and psychotherapy have markedly improved over the last twenty-five years. Biological concepts of mental illness are associated with stronger approval of psychiatric help, particularly medication. Self-stigma and negative attitudes towards persons with mental illness decrease the likelihood of personally considering psychiatric help. In conclusion, the public readily recommends psychiatric help for the treatment of mental disorders. Psychotherapy is the most popular method of psychiatric treatment. A useful strategy to further improve the public image of psychiatry could be to stress that listening and understanding are at the core of psychiatric care.

EPA guidance on how to improve the image of psychiatry and of the psychiatrist

Stigma against mental illness and the mentally ill is well known. However, stigma against psychiatrists and mental health professionals is known but not discussed widely. Public attitudes and also those of other professionals affect recruitment into psychiatry and mental health services. The reasons for this discriminatory attitude are many and often not dissimilar to those held against mentally ill individuals. In this Guidance paper we present some of the factors affecting the image of psychiatry and psychiatrists which is perceived by the public at large. We look at the portrayal of psychiatry, psychiatrists in the media and literature which may affect attitudes. We also explore potential causes and explanations and propose some strategies in dealing with negative attitudes. Reduction in negative attitudes will improve recruitment and retention in psychiatry. We recommend that national psychiatric societies and other stakeholders, including patients, their families and carers, have a major and significant role to play in dealing with stigma, discrimination and prejudice against psychiatry and psychiatrists.

The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care

Treatments have been developed and tested to successfully reduce the symptoms and disabilities of many mental illnesses. Unfortunately, people distressed by these illnesses often do not seek out services or choose to fully engage in them. One factor that impedes care seeking and undermines the service system is mental illness stigma. In this article, we review the complex elements of stigma in order to understand its impact on participating in care. We then summarize public policy considerations in seeking to tackle stigma in order to improve treatment engagement. Stigma is a complex construct that includes public, self, and structural components. It directly affects people with mental illness, as well as their support system, provider network, and community resources. The effects of stigma are moderated by knowledge of mental illness and cultural relevance. Understanding stigma is central to reducing its negative impact on care seeking and treatment engagement. Separate strategies have evolved for counteracting the effects of public, self, and structural stigma. Programs for mental health providers may be especially fruitful for promoting care engagement. Mental health literacy, cultural competence, and family engagement campaigns also mitigate stigma's adverse impact on care seeking. Policy change is essential to overcome the structural stigma that undermines government agendas meant to promote mental health care. Implications for expanding the research program on the connection between stigma and care seeking are discussed.

The crisis in psychiatry: a public health perspective

The role and responsibilities of psychiatry and psychiatrists have changed significantly in recent decades as a consequence of changes in society. The target of psychiatrists has moved from the treatment of specific mental disorders to the management of a wide range of psychological conditions. Following these changes, a public health approach has been claimed as necessary for psychiatric practice and research, given the current ongoing crisis in mental health. If we want to promote a public health approach, the following actions should be responsibly taken by modern mental health professionals: (1) the identification of causes of mental disorders, (2) the refinement of diagnoses, (3) the social inclusion of patients, (4) the involvement of users and carers in mental health research and practice, and (5) the improvement of psychiatric treatments and services. This crisis should represent a stimulus for all psychiatrists and a reconceptualization of psychiatry as public health is not in question.

Has the public taken notice of psychiatric reform? The image of psychiatric hospitals in Germany 1990-2011

PURPOSE

In the context of mental health care reform in Germany, psychiatric hospitals have been transformed in terms of their infrastructure, staffing levels and therapeutic culture. The question arises as to what extent these improvements had an impact on the public image of these institutions.

METHODS

In 1990 and 2011, population surveys were conducted in the "old" states of Germany, using the same sampling procedure, interview mode and measures.

RESULTS

Over the last two decades, attitudes toward psychiatric hospitals have improved considerably. This improvement was particularly pronounced among those who had been in treatment for mental health problems. The public is now more inclined to regard psychiatric hospitals as similar to other hospitals, more ready to expect effective treatment in psychiatric hospitals, and less inclined to support the stereotype that psychiatric hospitals are primarily places where patients are locked away. However, there was a stronger tendency to agree with the notion that psychiatric hospitals are necessary to protect society from persons with mental illness.

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement of psychiatric care seems to pay off as regards the image of psychiatric hospitals among the general public. Further efforts are necessary to reduce the stigma attached to mentally ill people.