Racial-Ethnic Differences in Mental Health Stigma and Changes Over the Course of a Statewide Campaign
Abstract
Objective:
The authors examined whether shifts in mental health–related stigma differed across racial-ethnic groups over the course of a California statewide antistigma campaign and whether racial-ethnic disparities were present at the beginning of the campaign and 1 year later.
Methods:
Participants had taken part in the 2013 and 2014 California Statewide Surveys (CASSs), a longitudinal, random-digit-dialing telephone survey of California adults ages ≥18 years (N=1,285). Surveys were administered in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Khmer, and Hmong.
Results:
Compared with Whites, Latino and Asian respondents who preferred to take the survey in their native language had higher levels of mental health–related stigma on several domains of the 2013 CASS. Specifically, Latino and Asian respondents who completed the survey in their native language were more likely than White respondents to report social distance, prejudice, and perceptions of dangerousness toward people with mental illness. These racial-ethnic disparities persisted 1 year later on the 2014 CASS. Latino-Spanish respondents experienced significant decreases in social distance over the course of the campaign but not to a degree that eliminated disparities on the 2014 CASS. Of note, perceptions of dangerousness of people with mental illness significantly increased among Latino-Spanish respondents between the 2013 and 2014 CASSs.
Conclusions:
Future research is needed to better understand which components of antistigma campaigns are effective across racial-ethnic minority groups and whether more targeted efforts are needed, especially in light of the persistent and growing racial-ethnic disparities in mental health care.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
This study assessed whether shifts in mental health–related stigma over the course of a population-based antistigma campaign differed by race-ethnicity and language in the United States.
•
Compared with White respondents, Latino respondents who preferred Spanish and Asian respondents who preferred their native language reported significantly higher levels of stigma (i.e., social distance, prejudice, and perceptions of dangerousness) at the start of the campaign and 1 year later.
•
Further research is needed to better understand which antistigma campaign components are effective across racial-ethnic minority groups and whether more targeted efforts are needed.
Mental health–related stigma is a significant public health concern (1–3). Described as the “most formidable obstacle” to progress in mental health by a former U.S. Surgeon General (3), mental health–related stigma not only can discourage people from initiating and adhering to treatment (4–7) but can also create a climate in which people with mental illness are shunned and deprived of opportunities to become fully contributing members of society (5, 6, 8).
The pernicious effects of stigma may be particularly severe for racial-ethnic minority groups who may be deterred from treatment because of “double stigma”: prejudice and discrimination resulting from the two stigmatized social identities of minority status and having a mental illness (9, 10). Moreover, some have posited that mental illness may be more highly stigmatized in racial-ethnic minority communities, given different cultural conceptualizations of mental illness and treatment (11–14). Remarkably, whether stigma is more prevalent among racial-ethnic minority groups has been subject to only limited investigation. With the exception of one study that found no significant differences between Whites and non-Whites (15), the few studies conducted with nationally representative U.S. samples have consistently found that persons of Black, Latino, or Asian American race-ethnicity harbor more negative beliefs, primarily related to perceptions of dangerousness, toward people with mental illness (16–18).
Perceptions of dangerousness along with social distance (i.e., reluctance to interact with members of devalued groups) are two domains of stigma that have been the most difficult to shift in both the United States and other Western countries (19, 20). To investigate the cumulative impact of local and national stigma-reduction campaigns in the United States, Pescosolido et al. (21) examined whether shifts in stigma had occurred between the years 1996 and 2006 (race-ethnicity variations were not explored). Although mental health treatment attitudes had shifted in a positive direction, concomitant reductions in perceived dangerousness and social distance were not observed.
Whether population “shifts” in stigma differ across racial-ethnic groups has been subject to even less empirical investigation. One of the few studies that has examined differential changes in stigma across racial-ethnic groups involved an evaluation of contact-based educational programs (22). Its findings, based on comparisons of prepresentation and immediate postpresentation surveys, revealed that Asian and Latino American participants showed greater reductions in stigma than did Whites. However, that study was limited to individuals who self-elected to attend educational presentations about mental illness. In England, where a national stigma and discrimination program has been running for more than a decade, positive shifts in stigma were observed in 2017 compared with baseline surveys in 2008 and 2009, but these shifts did not appear to differ across racial-ethnic groups (23).
In a landmark effort to reduce mental illness stigma and discrimination in California, a statewide, multifaceted initiative targeting institutional, societal, and individual factors was funded by the Mental Health Services Act and was managed by the California Mental Health Services Authority (24). The initiative was implemented through community organizations and included social marketing campaigns in English and Spanish, distribution of informational resources, efforts to improve media portrayals of mental illness, and thousands of contact-based educational presentations. At the evaluation baseline (spring 2013), most organizations were still building capacity, and implementation and reach were limited (25).
Statewide surveys conducted at that point and repeated 1 year later indicated that social distance decreased during this period but that perceived public stigma had increased (26). However, it is unknown whether shifts in stigma differed across racial-ethnic groups. According to U.S. Census projections, racial-ethnic minority groups are expected to become the majority population in less than 3 decades (27); in some states such as California, racial-ethnic minority groups already constitute the majority (28). To our knowledge, no U.S. study has tracked longitudinal shifts in stigma across racial-ethnic minority groups in the general public during a population-based antistigma campaign.
The purpose of this study was twofold: to examine whether shifts in mental health–related stigma during a population-based antistigma campaign differed across racial-ethnic groups, and to assess whether racial-ethnic disparities in stigma were present during the start of the California initiative and 1 year later. This study reanalyzed data from the aforementioned surveys as well as the 2013 and 2014 waves of the California Statewide Survey (CASS), a surveillance tool following a longitudinal cohort that was developed to track attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to mental illness.
Methods
Sample
Study participants were 1,285 individuals who completed both the 2013 and 2014 waves of the CASS, a longitudinal telephone survey of California adults ages ≥18 years enrolled through random-digit dialing to landlines and cellphones. The Field Research Corporation administered surveys by using their computer-assisted telephone interview system. The baseline CASS was conducted from May to September 2013, with 2,006 individuals enrolled May through June; surveys were administered in English or Spanish. An additional oversampling included 567 Black, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Americans, whose phone numbers were identified through purchased targeted lists and who were surveyed from August to September 2013. Most Asian Americans of the oversample chose to complete the survey in their native language (i.e., Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Khmer, or Hmong). The follow-up 2014 CASS was conducted 1 year later (from May to September 2014); 1,285 adults (50% of baseline participants) were reinterviewed. RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee approval and informed consent were obtained.
Measures
Survey items were largely drawn from previous studies that had developed surveys to track mental health–related stigma at the population level (17, 20, 29–32). The 2013 and 2014 CASSs assessed the following stigma domains: social distance, traditional prejudice, perceptions of dangerousness, treatment carryover, disclosure carryover, perceived public stigma, and courtesy stigma (33).
“Social distance,” the desire to be at distance from persons with stigmatized statuses, was assessed by asking participants to rate their degree of willingness to “move next door to,” “spend an evening socializing with,” and “start working closely on a job with” someone who has a mental illness (21, 33). Response options were dichotomized (0, probably/definitely willing; 1, probably/definitely unwilling).
“Traditional prejudice” (i.e., negative stereotypes or beliefs about people with mental illness) was assessed with the item, “People who have had a mental illness are never going to be able to contribute to society much.” “Perceptions of dangerousness” was assessed with the item, “I believe a person with mental illness is a danger to others” (17).
“Treatment carryover,” a belief that public knowledge that an individual has obtained mental health treatment would diminish one’s status within the community, was measured with the following items (31, 34): “Would you put off seeking treatment for fear of letting others know about your mental health problem?” and “If you had a serious emotional problem, would you go for professional help?” Response options were dichotomized (0, probably/definitely not; 1, probably/definitely would).
“Disclosure carryover,” a belief that disclosing a stigmatized condition such as a mental illness will incur negative responses, was assessed with the following items (31): “Would you try to hide your mental health problem from family or friends?” and “Would you try to hide your mental health problem from coworkers or classmates?” Response options were dichotomized (0, probably/definitely not; 1, probably/definitely would).
“Perceived public stigma” (i.e., beliefs about the public’s attitudes and behaviors toward people with mental illness) was measured with the following items: “People with mental illness experience high levels of prejudice and discrimination,” (31) and “People are generally caring and sympathetic to people with mental illness” (17). The aforementioned measures use a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, and response options were dichotomized (0, strongly/moderately disagree/neither agree nor disagree; 1, moderately/strongly agree).
“Courtesy stigma” occurs when those with social ties to individuals with mental illness incur devalued status, also referred to as “stigma by association” (35–37). Courtesy stigma was measured with the following question (38, 39): “If someone in your family had a mental illness, would you feel ashamed if people knew about it?” Response options were dichotomized (0, probably/definitely not ashamed; 1, definitely/probably ashamed).
In addition to these seven domains, “exposure to the social marketing portion of the antistigma campaign” was assessed with eight items in the 2014 CASS asking respondents whether they had been exposed to different marketing activities during the past 12 months. Endorsement of any of the activities was coded as 1 (exposed), and endorsing none was coded as 0 (not exposed).
On the basis of self-reported race, ethnicity, and preferred language of interview, we categorized participants according to the following “race-ethnicity and language” groups: White, Latino-English, Latino-Spanish, Asian-English, Asian–native language, and Black.
Analyses
Weights were applied to align sample characteristics with the characteristics of the California population. Attrition was higher for all non-White respondents. Inverse probability weights were used to account for these differences. The resulting sample roughly represented the general California adult population, although somewhat fewer Latinos were represented, as indicated by the 2013 U.S. Census (40). We report the weighted percentage of respondents who positively endorsed each stigma domain at baseline and follow-up by race-ethnicity and language.
To test for significant shifts in stigma between the baseline and follow-up surveys, we used logistic regression analyses for each of the racial-ethnic groups, predicting each stigma item at follow-up and controlling for its baseline value. To assess whether racial-ethnic disparities were present at the beginning of the initiative and 1 year later, we conducted separate logistic regression analyses predicting each stigma item at baseline and at follow-up from the racial-ethnic groups, with Whites as the reference group. All significance tests were adjusted to control the familywise error rate at 5% within each stigma domain and wave using Holm’s (41) method. Exploratory analyses examined whether any observed disparities at follow-up remained after controlling for exposure to social marketing aspects of the campaign.
Results
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the 1,285 respondents who completed the 2013 and 2014 CASSs. Changes in mental health–related stigma between baseline and follow-up surveys varied by racial-ethnic language group (Table 2). Stigma decreased in all groups except White and Black respondents. Latino-English, Latino-Spanish, and Asian-English respondents all had reductions in social distance. Asian–native language respondents had decreases in disclosure carryover. Interestingly, increases in stigma were observed for White (perceived public stigma), Latino-English (traditional prejudice), Latino-Spanish (perceptions of dangerousness and disclosure carryover), and Asian-English (disclosure carryover) respondents. (For weighted percentages, standard deviations, chi-square test statistics, and p values, see an online supplement to this article.)
| Characteristic | Unweighted N | Weighted % |
|---|---|---|
| Female | 665 | 51 |
| Age in years | ||
| 18–29 | 195 | 23 |
| 30–39 | 171 | 17 |
| 40–49 | 215 | 19 |
| 50–64 | 401 | 25 |
| ≥65 | 303 | 16 |
| Race-ethnicity, language | ||
| Latino, English speaking | 146 | 18 |
| Latino, Spanish speaking | 117 | 14 |
| Asian, English speaking | 58 | 5 |
| Asian, native language speaking | 111 | 8 |
| Black | 183 | 5 |
| White | 584 | 45 |
| Other | 86 | 6 |
| White-English | Latino-English | Latino-Spanish | Asian-English | Asian–native language | Black-Englisha | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain | 2013 | 2014 | Changea | 2013 | 2014 | Changea | 2013 | 2014 | Changea | 2013 | 2014 | Changea | 2013 | 2014 | Changea | 2013 | 2014 |
| Social distance | |||||||||||||||||
| Unwilling to move next door | 26 | 25 | 32 | 22 | Decrease | 56b | 53b | 45b | 29 | Decrease | 62b | 56b | 29 | 23 | |||
| Unwilling to spend an evening socializing | 13 | 13 | 19 | 12 | Decrease | 61b | 52b | Decrease | 16 | 10 | 33b | 32b | 14 | 19 | |||
| Unwilling to start working closely on a job | 25 | 24 | 21 | 22 | 53b | 41b | Decrease | 27 | 21 | 53b | 51b | 25 | 23 | ||||
| Traditional prejudice | |||||||||||||||||
| Never going to contribute much to society | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | Increase | 39b | 37b | 11 | 9 | 41b | 43b | 12b | 8 | ||||
| Perceptions of dangerousness | |||||||||||||||||
| A person with mental illness is a danger to others | 19 | 17 | 20 | 20 | 42b | 51b | Increase | 16 | 17 | 60b | 61b | 22 | 21 | ||||
| Treatment carryover | |||||||||||||||||
| Would delay treatment for fear of others knowing | 11 | 13 | 18 | 22 | 16 | 12 | 29b | 28 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 14 | |||||
| Would go for professional help | 94 | 94 | 93 | 93 | 98 | 97 | 91 | 85 | 78b | 89 | 93 | 95 | |||||
| Disclosure carryover | |||||||||||||||||
| Would hide mental illness from coworkers or classmates | 56 | 60 | 52 | 52 | 11c | 18c | Increase | 44 | 65 | Increase | 32c | 19c | Decrease | 50 | 45c | ||
| Would hide mental illness from family or friends | 23 | 26 | 22 | 19 | 12 | 15 | 29 | 32 | 17 | 14 | 22 | 18 | |||||
| Perceived public stigma | |||||||||||||||||
| People are caring and sympathetic to people with mental illness | 34 | 34 | 37 | 32 | 53c | 46 | 44 | 44 | 92c | 89c | 48c | 43 | |||||
| People with mental illness experience high levels of prejudice | 76 | 82 | Increase | 73 | 79 | 80 | 80 | 76 | 73 | 61c | 68 | 63c | 77 | ||||
| Courtesy stigma | |||||||||||||||||
| Would feel ashamed if family had mental illness | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 11 | 13b | 13b | 2 | 1 | |||||
a
None of the changes in stigma between survey waves among Black-English respondents were statistically significant. Indicated increases or decreases in stigma for other respondents were statistically significant (p<0.05); an absence of entries in the change columns indicates that an increase or a decrease was not statistically significant.
b
Significant disparity (stigma level higher among racial-ethnic minority group than among White respondents, p<0.05).
c
Reverse disparity (stigma level lower among racial-ethnic minority group than among White respondents, p<0.05).
Significant racial-ethnic disparities were present at baseline, with the greatest number of differences from Whites observed among Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents (Table 2). Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents had significantly higher levels of stigma on all three social distance items. Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents were more than twice as likely as White respondents to be unwilling to move next door to, socialize with, or work closely with someone experiencing a mental illness. Compared with White respondents, Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents were also about three times more likely to perceive people with mental illness as dangerous and six to seven times more likely to say that people with mental illness are never going to contribute much to society.
Additionally, Asian–native language respondents expressed greater levels of treatment carryover and courtesy stigma than did White respondents. Reverse disparities were also observed among Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents who had lower levels of disclosure carryover and perceived public stigma than White respondents. No disparities with White respondents were observed for Latino-English respondents. Asian-English respondents showed disparities from Whites in social distance and treatment carryover. Black respondents were more likely to endorse traditional prejudice but less likely to endorse perceived public stigma than were White respondents.
One year later, all of the disparities documented among Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents at the start of the initiative persisted, with the exception of treatment carryover stigma in the Asian–native language group (Table 2). Baseline reverse disparities among Latino-Spanish (i.e., disclosure carryover) and Asian–native language (i.e., disclosure carryover and perceived public stigma) respondents also persisted at the follow-up. For Asian-English respondents, baseline disparities (social distance and treatment carryover) were no longer present at the 1-year follow-up.
Exploratory analyses revealed differential exposure to the social marketing aspect of the campaign, with 47% Latino-English, 48% Latino-Spanish, 26% Asian-English, 28% Asian–native language, 50% Black, and 35% White respondents reporting exposure (χ2=31.54, df=6, p<0.001; percentages were weighted). Asian–native language respondents had lower (p=0.03) and Black respondents higher (p=0.02) exposure to the marketing than did White respondents. After controlling for exposure, only a single disparity at follow-up was no longer significant, namely, the Latino-Spanish disparity on social distance (unwilling to work closely with someone with a mental illness).
Discussion
This study is the first to assess whether shifts in mental health–related stigma during the implementation of a population-based antistigma campaign in the United States differed by race-ethnicity and language. Our findings indicate clear group differences, with stigma decreasing in both language groups of Latino and Asian respondents but not among White or Black respondents between the 2013 and 2014 CASSs. Moreover, Latino (English and Spanish) and Asian (English only) respondents showed a more complex pattern, with both increases and decreases across varying stigma domains. The findings raise questions about whether the campaign might have been less effective for White and Black respondents and for certain stigma domains among Latino and Asian respondents.
Our findings also highlight how associations between stigma domains may differ across racial-ethnic groups. For instance, Latino-Spanish respondents showed significant increases in perceptions of dangerousness but decreases in social distance. Previous studies have shown positive associations between perceptions of dangerousness and social distance, but correlations have ranged from 0.2 to 0.6, indicating that these two stigma domains tap distinct underlying beliefs (42, 43). It is unclear whether this pattern for Latino and Asian respondents showing both improvements and exacerbation in stigma levels indicates racial-ethnic differences in the interrelationships between stigma constructs or in the impact of the campaign across different stigma dimensions.
Nonetheless, persistent disparities across several stigma domains were apparent among Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents who reported greater levels of social distance, perceptions of dangerousness, and traditional prejudice on the 2013 and 2014 CASSs. Latino-Spanish respondents did have reductions in social distance toward people with mental illness but not to a degree that eliminated disparities at the 2014 CASS. These findings underscore the importance of accounting for intragroup differences within racial-ethnic minority groups. Treating interview language as an approximate and imperfect indicator of acculturation, we found that reducing stigma disparities may be particularly challenging among immigrant groups with lower acculturation levels.
Respondents who preferred to complete the survey in their native language likely were immigrants who had arrived in the United States as adults and may have maintained cultural conceptualizations from their native countries that may have shaped their attitudes toward people with mental illness. For instance, conceptualizations of mental illness in Asian and Latin American countries may be limited to more severe forms of mental illness, such as psychotic disorders (44–46), which may be related to perceptions of dangerousness. This finding is consistent with prior research showing that racial-ethnic minority groups in the United States and other Western countries harbor greater perceptions of dangerousness compared with their majority counterparts (47).
None of the racial-ethnic minority groups reported greater levels of disclosure carryover or perceived public stigma than White respondents; in fact, Latino-Spanish and Asian–native language respondents were less likely to endorse these stigma domains. Immigrants may prefer to turn to family and friends first for help with mental health problems than to mental health professionals (48), which may account for non-English–speaking respondents being less likely to endorse potentially hiding a mental illness from others. However, despite the observed reverse disparities, disclosure carryover increased among Latino-Spanish respondents between survey waves, which may reflect acculturation to (more negative) views of mental illness in the United States.
Altogether, our findings underscore the importance of cultural influences on not only the salience of particular stigma domains but also potentially on shifts within these stigma domains. The intransigent disparities observed among non-English–speaking groups in social distance, traditional prejudice, and perceptions of dangerousness may negatively affect the recovery and integration of people with mental illness who reside within these communities. Non-English–speaking respondents likely immigrated from Latin America and Asia, where hospital-based care versus community-based care is more prevalent and where experiences of people with mental illness being fully integrated into society may be more limited (49, 50).
Immigrant groups may need more frequent, higher doses of, or better-quality contact with people who have recovered successfully from a mental illness to override negative conceptualizations of mental illness that may be prevalent in their native country and in ethnic enclaves in the United States where public disclosure of mental health problems may be even less the norm than in the broader society (51). Public stigma may translate into internalized stigma and lead to premature treatment termination; addressing stigma within the course of treatment, especially with racial-ethnic minority groups, may be critical to ensuring successful outcomes (52, 53). Although culture has been identified as a key factor that shapes stigma (9, 49), limited research has been conducted in this arena. Much of the research has documented cultural variations in the prevalence of stigma, but few studies have examined why these differences occur (47); such information could be critical to tailoring effective antistigma interventions for culturally diverse populations.
Certain study limitations should be considered. Our study’s use of single-item measures, although drawn from previous population-based surveys, may have limited reliability. In addition, this study’s sample of Asian and Latino groups was not sufficiently diverse or statistically powered to examine potential intragroup differences. Even though the documented shifts in stigma occurred during the time of the campaign, it is uncertain whether they were a direct result of it. Secular trends in stigma or events occurring during the campaign (e.g., high-profile suicides) may have affected public attitudes.
The statewide initiative featured other components tailored for communities comprising African Americans (e.g., a faith-based initiative to create mental health–friendly congregations), Asians (e.g., in-language public service announcements on the radio), or Latinos (e.g., family forums), which could have contributed to shifts in stigma. Moreover, the baseline CASS was administered while the antistigma statewide initiative had already been under way and may not have captured true estimates of stigma preintervention, resulting in a potential underestimation of change. Future studies may be better able to link changes to campaign efforts by implementing intervention activities in certain regions while withholding activities in others to create a control comparison region, as done in a previous study in Germany (54).
Conclusions
This study documented racial-ethnic variations in shifts across multiple domains of stigma in a population-based sample. Previous population-based studies examining racial-ethnic differences have focused on only a few stigma dimensions (16, 18) and have rarely investigated shifts during an antistigma campaign. Evaluating which components of antistigma campaigns are effective across racial-ethnic minority groups is warranted for future research to better understand whether more targeted efforts are needed, especially in light of the persistent and growing racial-ethnic disparities in mental health care (55).
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201900630.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 128.04 KB
References
1.
Ending Discrimination Against People With Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change. Washington, DC, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016
2.
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003
3.
Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, 1999
4.
Clement S, Schauman O, Graham T, et al : What is the impact of mental health–related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychol Med 2015 ; 45 : 11 – 27
5.
Corrigan PW : Lessons learned from unintended consequences about erasing the stigma of mental illness. World Psychiatry 2016 ; 15 : 67 – 73
6.
Corrigan PW, Shapiro JR : Measuring the impact of programs that challenge the public stigma of mental illness. Clin Psychol Rev 2010 ; 30 : 907 – 922
7.
Gulliver A, Griffiths KM, Christensen H : Perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health help-seeking in young people: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 2010 ; 10 : 113
8.
Parcesepe AM, Cabassa LJ : Public stigma of mental illness in the United States: a systematic literature review. Adm Policy Ment Health 2013 ; 40 : 384 – 399
9.
Bradford LD, Newkirk C, Holden KB : Stigma and mental health in African Americans ; in Health Issues in the Black community, 3rd ed. Edited by Brathwaite, RL, Taylor, SE, Treadwell, HM. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2009
10.
Gary FA : Stigma: barrier to mental health care among ethnic minorities. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2005 ; 26 : 979 – 999
11.
Leong FT, Lau AS : Barriers to providing effective mental health services to Asian Americans. Ment Health Serv Res 2001 ; 3 : 201 – 214
12.
Nadeem E, Lange JM, Edge D, et al : Does stigma keep poor young immigrant and US-born Black and Latina women from seeking mental health care? Psychiatr Serv 2007 ; 58 : 1547 – 1554
13.
Schraufnagel TJ, Wagner AW, Miranda J, et al : Treating minority patients with depression and anxiety: what does the evidence tell us? Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2006 ; 28 : 27 – 36
14.
Snowden LR : Barriers to effective mental health services for African Americans. Ment Health Serv Res 2001 ; 3 : 181 – 187
15.
Martin JK, Pescosolido BA, Olafsdottir S, et al : The construction of fear: Americans’ preferences for social distance from children and adolescents with mental health problems. J Health Soc Behav 2007 ; 48 : 50 – 67
16.
Anglin DM, Link BG, Phelan JC : Racial differences in stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2006 ; 57 : 857 – 862
17.
Kobau R, Diiorio C, Chapman D, et al : Attitudes about mental illness and its treatment: validation of a generic scale for public health surveillance of mental illness associated stigma. Community Ment Health J 2010 ; 46 : 164 – 176
18.
Whaley AL : Ethnic and racial differences in perceptions of dangerousness of persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 1997 ; 48 : 1328 – 1330
19.
Pescosolido BA : The public stigma of mental illness: what do we think; what do we know; what can we prove? J Health Soc Behav 2013 ; 54 : 1 – 21
20.
Pescosolido BA, Medina TR, Martin JK, et al : The “backbone” of stigma: identifying the global core of public prejudice associated with mental illness. Am J Public Health 2013 ; 103 : 853 – 860
21.
Pescosolido BA, Martin JK, Long JS, et al : “A disease like any other”? A decade of change in public reactions to schizophrenia, depression, and alcohol dependence. Am J Psychiatry 2010 ; 167 : 1321 – 1330
22.
Wong EC, Collins RL, Cerully JL, et al : Effects of contact-based mental illness stigma reduction programs: age, gender, and Asian, Latino, and White American differences. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2018 ; 53 : 299 – 308
23.
Robinson EJ, Henderson C : Public knowledge, attitudes, social distance and reporting contact with people with mental illness 2009–2017. Psychol Med 2019 ; 49 : 2717 – 2726
24.
Clark W, Welch SN, Berry SH, et al : California’s historic effort to reduce the stigma of mental illness: the Mental Health Services Act. Am J Public Health 2013 ; 103 : 786 – 794
25.
Collins RL, Cerully JL, Wong EC, et al: Evaluating the California Mental Health Services Authority’s Stigma and Discrimination Reduction Initiative: Year 1 Findings. Santa Monica, CA, RAND Corporation, 2014. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR438z2.html. Accessed Oct 1, 2020
26.
Collins RL, Wong EC, Roth E, et al : Changes in mental illness stigma in California during the statewide Stigma and Discrimination Reduction Initiative. Rand Health Q 2015 ; 5 : 10
27.
Older People Projected to Outnumber Children for First Time in US History. Suitland, MD, Census Bureau, 2018. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html. Accessed Oct 1, 2020
28.
Department of Finance Releases New State Population Projection. Sacramento, CA, State of California Department of Finance, 2017
29.
Angermeyer MC, Dietrich S : Public beliefs about and attitudes towards people with mental illness: a review of population studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006 ; 113 : 163 – 179
30.
Mojtabai R, Evans-Lacko S, Schomerus G, et al : Attitudes toward mental health help seeking as predictors of future help-seeking behavior and use of mental health treatments. Psychiatr Serv 2016 ; 67 : 650 – 657
31.
Irish Attitudes Towards Mental Health Problems. Maynooth, Ireland, See Change, 2012
32.
Wyllie A, Lauder J : Impacts of National Media Campaign to Counter Stigma and Discrimination Associated With Mental Illness. Auckland, New Zealand, Phoenix Research, 2012. https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/assets/ResourceFinder/Impacts-of-national-media.pdf
33.
Pescosolido BA, Martin JK : The stigma complex. Annu Rev Sociol 2015 ; 41 : 87 – 116
34.
Wang PS, Berglund P, Olfson M, et al : Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005 ; 62 : 603 – 613
35.
Angermeyer MC, Schulze B, Dietrich S : Courtesy stigma—a focus group study of relatives of schizophrenia patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2003 ; 38 : 593 – 602
36.
Corrigan PW, Miller FE : Shame, blame, and contamination: a review of the impact of mental illness stigma on family members. J Ment Health 2004 ; 13 : 537 – 548. doi:
37.
Ostman M, Kjellin L : Stigma by association: psychological factors in relatives of people with mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 2002 ; 181 : 494 – 498
38.
Gaebel W, Baumann AE : Interventions to reduce the stigma associated with severe mental illness: experiences from the open the doors program in Germany. Can J Psychiatry 2003 ; 48 : 657 – 662
39.
Stuart H, Arboleda-Flórez J : Community attitudes toward people with schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry 2001 ; 46 : 245 – 252
40.
Quick Facts: California. Suitland, MD, Census Bureau, 2015. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045219. Accessed Oct 1, 2020
41.
Holm S : A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 1979 ; 6 : 65 – 70
42.
Jorm AF, Oh E : Desire for social distance from people with mental disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2009 ; 43 : 183 – 200
43.
Jorm AF, Reavley NJ, Ross AM : Belief in the dangerousness of people with mental disorders: a review. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2012 ; 46 : 1029 – 1045
44.
Guarnaccia PJ, Martinez I, Acosta H : Chapter 2. Mental health in the Hispanic immigrant community. J Immigr Refugee Serv 2005 ; 3 : 21 – 46. doi:
45.
Kramer EJ, Kwong K, Lee E, et al : Cultural factors influencing the mental health of Asian Americans. West J Med 2002 ; 176 : 227 – 231
46.
Lauber C, Rössler W : Stigma towards people with mental illness in developing countries in Asia. Int Rev Psychiatry 2007 ; 19 : 157 – 178
47.
Abdullah T, Brown TL : Mental illness stigma and ethnocultural beliefs, values, and norms: an integrative review. Clin Psychol Rev 2011 ; 31 : 934 – 948
48.
Derr AS : Mental health service use among immigrants in the United States: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv 2016 ; 67 : 265 – 274
49.
Mascayano F, Tapia T, Schilling S, et al : Stigma toward mental illness in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review. Br J Psychiatry 2016 ; 38 : 73 – 85
50.
Zhang Z, Sun K, Jatchavala C, et al : Overview of stigma against psychiatric illnesses and advancements of anti-stigma activities in six Asian societies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 ; 17 : 280
51.
Leong FTL, Kalibatseva Z : Cross-cultural barriers to mental health services in the United States. Cerebrum 2011 ; 2011 : 5
52.
Corrigan PW, Larson JE, Rüsch N : Self-stigma and the “why try” effect: impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry 2009 ; 8 : 75 – 81
53.
Corrigan PW, Rao D : On the self-stigma of mental illness: stages, disclosure, and strategies for change. Can J Psychiatry 2012 ; 57 : 464 – 469
54.
Dietrich S, Mergl R, Freudenberg P, et al : Impact of a campaign on the public’s attitudes towards depression. Health Educ Res 2010 ; 25 : 135 – 150
55.
Cook BL, Trinh NH, Li Z, et al : Trends in racial-ethnic disparities in access to mental health care, 2004–2012. Psychiatr Serv 2017 ; 68 : 9 – 16
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 23 December 2019
Revision received: 4 August 2020
Accepted: 3 September 2020
Published online: 11 March 2021
Published in print: May 01, 2021
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant R01-MH-104381. The 2013 and 2014 California Statewide Surveys were conducted with funding from the California Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63), which was administered through the California Mental Health Services Authority.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).