A comparison of stigmatizing attitudes toward persons with schizophrenia in four stakeholder groups: perceived likelihood of violence and desire for social distance.
ABSTRACT This study compared four stakeholder groups regarding the presence of stigmatizing attitudes toward a hypothetical person diagnosed with schizophrenia. Participants included consumers with schizophrenia (n = 104), family members of those with schizophrenia or other severe mental illness (n = 83), mental health clinicians (n = 85), and members of the general public (n = 59); all participants resided in North Carolina. The purpose of the analyses was to investigate whether mental health stakeholder groups differed from the general public and from each other in terms of key attitudes associated with stigmatization of persons with schizophrenia, that is, perceived likelihood of violent behavior, the desire for social distance, and the causes of the illness. Analysis of variance results with follow-up Scheffé tests indicated no statistically significant differences between the mental health stakeholder groups and members of the general public in the likelihood of violence or the desire for social distance. However, there was more variation between both the mental health stakeholder groups and the general public and within the mental health stakeholder groups in the perceptions of the causes of the mental illness. Throughout the analyses, the consumers tended to have the most negative views of the illness. Implications for future stigma research and education are discussed.
SourceAvailable from: etd.ohiolink.edu
Mental Health and Substance Use dual diagnosis 02/2013; 7(3):217-229. DOI:10.1080/17523281.2013.806951
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Non evidence-based prescribing of antipsychotics is common in the UK and internationally with high doses and polypharmacy the norm. These practices often remain even after systematic attempts are made to change. We aimed to establish which factors are linked to antipsychotic prescribing quality so we can identify and target patients for interventions to improve quality and allow us to understand further the drivers of non evidence-based prescribing. A cross-sectional survey with a collection of factors potentially affecting antipsychotic prescribing quality outcomes was carried out in eight secondary care units in England. Participants were inpatients prescribed regular antipsychotics on the day of the survey. Antipsychotic dose, polypharmacy, type and route were the main outcome measures. Data were collected for 1198 patients. Higher total dose was associated with greater weight, higher number of previous admissions, longer length of admission, noncompliance with medication and use of an atypical antipsychotic. A lower total dose was associated with clozapine use. Polypharmacy was associated with not being a patient at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust centre, the subject having a forensic history, a greater number of previous admissions and higher total dose. Younger age, not being detained under a Mental Health Act section, atypical antipsychotic use and oral route were predictors of antipsychotic monotherapy. Atypical antipsychotic use was associated with oral route, higher total dose, being administered only one antipsychotic, having had fewer previous antipsychotics and no anticholinergic use. Use of the oral route was associated with not being sectioned under the Mental Health Act, atypical antipsychotic use, younger age, non-schizophrenia diagnosis, fewer previous admissions and a lower total dose. In patients with chronic illness who are detained, heavier, noncompliant, not taking clozapine and on a depot antipsychotic, prescribers use larger doses and antipsychotic polypharmacy. We found that use of percentage of licensed maximum doses favours typical antipsychotics arbitrarily, and that high doses and polypharmacy are inextricably linked.Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 12/2014; 4(6):247-256. DOI:10.1177/2045125314540298 · 1.53 Impact Factor