4.5 Article

Implicit and explicit internalized stigma: Relationship with risky behaviors, psychosocial functioning and healthcare access among people who inject drugs

期刊

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 305-311

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.08.036

关键词

Internalized stigma; Implicit associations; IAT; Injecting drug use; Risk behaviors

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP120200417]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP120200417] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: People who inject drugs (PWID) are stigmatized by society. Over time people may begin to internalize the stigma about their group. This research examines how implicit and explicit internalized stigma among PWID relates to health care and treatment access, psychosocial functioning, and engagement in risky behaviors. Methods: PWID were recruited from a needle and syringe program (NSP) located in Sydney, Australia. Participants completed a survey examining explicit and implicit internalized stigma, risky behaviors (e.g., sharing injecting equipment, unprotected sex), health care and treatment access (e.g., comfort attending NSPs), and psychosocial functioning (e.g., mental health). Detailed demographic variables were also collected. Results: A total of 115 clients completed the measures. To the degree that participants had internalized the stigma about their group (measured explicitly), they felt less comfortable attending NSPs, had greater severity of dependence, and experienced more depressive symptoms. The implicit measure of internalized stigma was related to treatment engagement and needle sharing, although the direction of these effects was unexpected. Conclusions: This research highlights the importance of ongoing research into the implications of internalized stigma for PWID. Assessing both explicit and implicit internalized stigma appears to be beneficial as these are related to different health and behavioral outcomes.

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

4.5
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