4.7 Review

Bipolar disorder and stigma: A systematic review of the literature

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 151, 期 3, 页码 805-820

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.014

关键词

Bipolar disorder; Public stigma; Internalised stigma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The degree to which bipolar disorder is stigmatised by the public and the extent of internalised stigma for people with this disorder, their families, and carers has been a relatively neglected area of research. This review aimed to determine what is currently known about stigma and bipolar disorder. Method: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify publications which investigated public attitudes and/or beliefs about bipolar disorder or explored internalised stigma in bipolar disorder. The electronic databases PsychINFO, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 1992 and 2012. Results: Twenty five articles met the reviews inclusion criteria. There are inconsistent findings regarding public stigma, although there is some evidence that bipolar disorder is viewed more positively than schizophrenia and less positively than depression. There is a moderate to high degree of internalised stigma in bipolar disorder, although the literature raises questions regarding its ubiquity in this population. Limitations: Limiting the search by year of publication and excluding studies where stigma was not the main focus could mean stigma has wider implications than were identified. Conclusions: This review is the first systematic synthesis of research relating to stigma and bipolar disorder. In comparison to research on other mental health problems, there is a dearth of literature exploring stigma in bipolar disorder. The literature is largely inconclusive. Future research is needed to replicate tentative findings and address methodological limitations before the field can move on to the development of anti-stigma interventions. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据