4.1 Article

The Important Role of Stereotypes in the relation between Mental Health Literacy and Stigmatization of Depression and Psychosis in the Community

Journal

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages 474-486

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10597-021-00842-5

Keywords

Mental disorders; Mental health literacy; Stereotyping; Stigma; Structural equation model

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_135381]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_135381] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that increased mental health literacy did not directly reduce stigmatization of people with mental disorders, only the psychosocial causal model was directly associated with the wish for social distance from people with depressive and psychotic symptoms.
Increased mental health literacy (MHL) has not reduced stigmatization of people with mental disorder. Thus, we examined the role of stereotypes in the interplay of MHL (correct labelling, causal explanations) and the wish for social distance (WSD) from people with depressive and psychotic symptoms in a community sample of 1526 German-speaking participants in the Swiss 'Bern Epidemiological At-Risk' study (age 16-40 years; response rate: 60.1%). Following the presentation of an unlabelled case vignette of depression or psychosis, MHL, stereotypes and WSD were assessed in a questionnaire survey. Their interrelations were studied using structural equation modelling. MHL was not directly linked to WSD, only the psychosocial causal model was directly negatively associated with WSD. Perceived dangerousness particularly increased WSD, this was increased by a biogenetic causal model and decreased by a psychosocial causal model. Awareness-campaigns that, next to biological causes, emphasize psychosocial causes of mental disorders might better reduce stigmatization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available