4.7 Review

Correlates and consequences of internalized stigma for people living with mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 2150-2161

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.030

关键词

Stigma; Mental illness; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An expansive body of research has investigated the experiences and adverse consequences of internalized stigma for people with mental illness. This article provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of the extant research regarding the empirical relationship between internalized stigma and a range of sociodemographic, psychosocial, and psychiatric variables for people who live with mental illness. An exhaustive review of the research literature was performed on all articles published in English that assessed a statistical relationship between internalized stigma and at least one other variable for adults who live with mental illness. In total, 127 articles met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, of which, data from 45 articles were extracted for meta-analyses. None of the sociodemographic variables that were included in the study were consistently or strongly correlated with levels of internalized stigma. The review uncovered a striking and robust negative relationship between internalized stigma and a range of psychosocial variables (e.g., hope, self-esteem, and empowerment). Regarding psychiatric variables, internalized stigma was positively associated with psychiatric symptom severity and negatively associated with treatment adherence. The review draws attention to the lack of longitudinal research in this area of study which has inhibited the clinical relevance of findings related to internalized stigma. The study also highlights the need for greater attention on disentangling the true nature of the relationship between internalized stigma and other psychosocial variables. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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