Article

Attitudes Toward Mental Illness in Adults by Mental Illness-Related Factors and Chronic Disease Status: 2007 and 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Rosemarie Kobau and Matthew M. Zack are with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Population Health, Arthritis, Epilepsy, and Well-Being Branch, Atlanta, GA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 09/2013; 103(11). DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301321
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objectives. We examined how attitudes toward mental illness treatment and its course differ by serious psychological distress, mental illness treatment, chronic disease, and sociodemographic factors using representative state-based data. Methods. Using data from jurisdictions supporting the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System's Mental Illness and Stigma Module (35 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico), we compared adjusted proportions of adults agreeing that "Treatment can help people with mental illness lead normal lives" (treatment effectiveness) and that "People are generally caring and sympathetic to people with mental illness" (supportive environment), by demographic characteristics, serious psychological distress, chronic disease status, and mental illness treatment. Results. Attitudes regarding treatment effectiveness and a supportive environment for people with mental illness varied within and between groups. Most adults receiving mental illness treatment agreed that treatment is effective. Fewer adults with serious psychological distress than those without such distress agreed that treatment is effective. Fewer of those receiving treatment, those with psychological distress, and those with chronic disease perceived the environment as supportive. Conclusions. These data can be used to target interventions for population subgroups with less favorable attitudes and for surveillance. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 12, 2013: e1-e12. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301321).

0 Followers
 · 
364 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the public's recognition of mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of various treatments ("mental health literacy"). A cross-sectional survey, in 1995, with structured interviews using vignettes of a person with either depression or schizophrenia. A representative national sample of 2031 individuals aged 18-74 years; 1010 participants were questioned about the depression vignette and 1021 about the schizophrenia vignette. Most of the participants recognised the presence of some sort of mental disorder: 72% for the depression vignette (correctly labelled as depression by 39%) and 84% for the schizophrenia vignette (correctly labelled by 27%). When various people were rated as likely to be helpful or harmful for the person described in the vignette for depression, general practitioners (83%) and counsellors (74%) were most often rated as helpful, with psychiatrists (51%) and psychologists (49%) less so. Corresponding data for the schizophrenia vignette were: counsellors (81%), GPs (74%), psychiatrists (71%) and psychologists (62%). Many standard psychiatric treatments (antidepressants, antipsychotics, electroconvulsive therapy, admission to a psychiatric ward) were more often rated as harmful than helpful, and some nonstandard treatments were rated highly (increased physical or social activity, relaxation and stress management, reading about people with similar problems). Vitamins and special diets were more often rated as helpful than were antidepressants and antipsychotics. If mental disorders are to be recognised early in the community and appropriate intervention sought, the level of mental health literacy needs to be raised. Further, public understanding of psychiatric treatments can be considerably improved.
    The Medical journal of Australia 03/1997; 166(4):182-6. · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinicians, advocates, and policy makers have presented mental illnesses as medical diseases in efforts to overcome low service use, poor adherence rates, and stigma. The authors examined the impact of this approach with a 10-year comparison of public endorsement of treatment and prejudice. The authors analyzed responses to vignettes in the mental health modules of the 1996 and 2006 General Social Survey describing individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, major depression, and alcohol dependence to explore whether more of the public 1) embraces neurobiological understandings of mental illness; 2) endorses treatment from providers, including psychiatrists; and 3) reports community acceptance or rejection of people with these disorders. Multivariate analyses examined whether acceptance of neurobiological causes increased treatment support and lessened stigma. In 2006, 67% of the public attributed major depression to neurobiological causes, compared with 54% in 1996. High proportions of respondents endorsed treatment, with general increases in the proportion endorsing treatment from doctors and specific increases in the proportions endorsing psychiatrists for treatment of alcohol dependence (from 61% in 1996 to 79% in 2006) and major depression (from 75% in 1996 to 85% in 2006). Social distance and perceived danger associated with people with these disorders did not decrease significantly. Holding a neurobiological conception of these disorders increased the likelihood of support for treatment but was generally unrelated to stigma. Where associated, the effect was to increase, not decrease, community rejection. More of the public embraces a neurobiological understanding of mental illness. This view translates into support for services but not into a decrease in stigma. Reconfiguring stigma reduction strategies may require providers and advocates to shift to an emphasis on competence and inclusion.
    American Journal of Psychiatry 11/2010; 167(11):1321-30. DOI:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743 · 13.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Malaria in humans is caused by intraerythrocytic protozoa of the genus Plasmodium. These parasites are transmitted by the bite of an infective female Anopheles mosquito. The majority of malaria infections in the United States occur among persons who have traveled to areas with ongoing malaria transmission. In the United States, cases can occur through exposure to infected blood products, congenital transmission, or local mosquitoborne transmission. Malaria surveillance is conducted to identify episodes of local transmission and to guide prevention recommendations for travelers. This report summarizes cases in persons with onset of illness in 2009 and summarizes trends during previous years. Malaria cases diagnosed by blood film, polymerase chain reaction or rapid diagnostic tests are mandated to be reported to local and state health departments by health-care providers or laboratory staff. Case investigations are conducted by local and state health departments, and reports are transmitted to CDC through the National Malaria Surveillance System (NMSS), National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS), or direct CDC consults. Data from these reporting systems serve as the basis for this report. CDC received reports of 1,484 cases of malaria, including two transfusion-related cases, three possible congenital cases, one transplant case and four fatal cases, with an onset of symptoms in 2009 among persons in the United States. This number represents an increase of 14% from the 1,298 cases reported for 2008. Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, and P. ovale were identified in 46%, 11%, 2%, and 2% of cases, respectively. Thirteen patients were infected by two or more species. The infecting species was unreported or undetermined in 38% of cases. Among the 1,484 cases 1,478 were classified as imported. Among the 103 U.S. civilians for whom information on chemoprophylaxis use and travel area was known, only 34 (33%) reported that they had followed and adhered to a chemoprophylactic drug regimen recommended by CDC for the area to which they had traveled. Nineteen cases were reported in pregnant women, among whom none adhered to chemoprophylaxis. Almost 22% of the cases among pregnant women were treated with an inappropriate treatment drug regimen, of which 39% were among cases with either a P. vivax or P. ovale infection where primaquine was not taken. Among all the reasons for travel, travelers visiting friends and relatives (VFR) and missionaries were the groups with the lowest proportion of chemoprophylexis use. A notable increase in the number of malaria cases was reported from 2008 to 2009; however, the number of cases in 2009 is consistent with the average number of cases reported during the preceding 4 years. In the majority of reported cases, U.S. civilians who acquired infection abroad had not adhered to a chemoprophylaxis regimen that was appropriate for the country in which they acquired malaria. Furthermore, treatment of malaria, while appropriate for the majority of cases, was insufficient for a large number of P. vivax and P. ovale infections, putting patients at risk for relapsing malaria. Decreasing the number of malaria cases in subsequent years will require conveying the importance of adhering to appropriate preventive measures for malaria specifically targeting travelers visiting friends and relatives, missionary, and pregnant populations. Clinicians require education on the need to encourage use of malaria prophylaxis and need further information on the appropriate diagnostic and treatment guidelines for malaria. Malaria prevention recommendations are available online (http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/ or http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2010/chapter-2/malaria.aspx#990). Malaria infections can be fatal if not diagnosed and treated promptly with antimalarial medications appropriate for the individual patient's age and medical history, the likely site of malaria acquisition, and previous use of antimalarial chemoprophylaxis. Clinicians should consult the CDC Guidelines for Treatment and contact the CDC's Malaria Hotline for case management advisement when needed. Malaria treatment recommendations can be obtained online (http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/diagnosis_treatment) or by calling the Malaria Hotline (770-488-7788).
    MMWR. Surveillance summaries: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries / CDC 04/2011; 60(3):1-15.