A Cross-Diagnostic Investigation of the Differential Impact of Discrimination on Clinical and Personal Recovery
Abstract
Objective:
Although the negative association between discrimination and recovery has been established, only a few studies have attempted to investigate the underlying mechanism of how perceived discrimination dampens both clinical and personal recovery among people with psychiatric disorders. This study aimed to examine the mediating roles of self-stigma and mental health service engagement in the relationship between perceived discrimination and recovery.
Methods:
A total of 374 people (half men and half women; mean±SD age=43.47±12.76) living in Hong Kong and in recovery with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, mood disorder, or substance use disorder responded to a cross-sectional questionnaire on discrimination, self-stigma, mental health service adherence, recovery orientation of services, clinical recovery, and personal recovery. Multisample structural equation modeling was conducted to examine whether the hypothesized model for perceived discrimination and recovery produced results that could be generalized across people with various psychiatric diagnoses.
Results:
Findings indicated that respondents perceived discrimination from the general public and from health care professionals, which was positively associated with self-stigmatization and service disengagement and was negatively associated with clinical and personal recovery across three different types of psychiatric disorder.
Conclusions:
This study showed that the influence of perceived discrimination on recovery was universal and could be generalized across people with different psychiatric diagnoses. Multipronged stigma reduction interventions targeting the general public, health care professionals, and people in recovery, along with policies that avert discrimination and uphold human rights in health care settings and beyond, should be implemented.
Despite efforts to avert discrimination at the policy, structural, and interpersonal levels across the globe (1,2), discrimination against people with mental illness who are in recovery continues to persist in every aspect of life, including education, housing, employment, and everyday social interactions (3–5). A particularly significant finding is that people in recovery from or in mental illness often experience stigma when receiving health care and human services (6–8). Schulze and Angermeyer (9) found that stigma in mental health care settings constitutes nearly one-fourth of the stigmatizing experiences of people in recovery. Similar to the findings on stigma in the general public, other studies have found repeatedly that health care service providers endorsed negative stereotypes toward and social distance from people with mental illnesses (10,11). Such experiences may exacerbate the internalization of stigma among people in recovery and compromise their full engagement in the recovery process (12,13). Building on the previous literature, this study developed a mediation model on how perceived discrimination affects self-stigma and service engagement, and, subsequently, clinical and personal recovery among people in recovery. The hypothesized mediation model is shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Mediational model of perceived discriminationa
a Unstandardized structural parameters are shown. Dashed lines indicate insignificant paths. χ2=1,302.32, df=846, p<.001, comparative fit index=.92, Tucker-Lewis index=.91, root mean square error of approximation=.066, 90% confidence interval=.059–.073.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Previous studies have shown that people in recovery who are exposed to discriminatory behaviors from the public and from service providers may endorse and concur with the negative stereotypes applied to them—a process known as “self-stigmatization” (14). In addition to being an impetus to self-stigmatization, recurring experiences of discrimination can deter individuals from help seeking (15), treatment participation (16), and medication adherence (17) and increase their risk of premature service termination (18). Finally, apart from its direct impact on service engagement, discrimination may also reduce care-seeking behavior and adherence to psychiatric treatment through increased levels of self-stigma (19).
Increased self-stigmatization can undermine the overall recovery of people with mental illness. Previous studies have consistently identified two dimensions of recovery, namely clinical recovery and personal recovery (20,21). Clinical recovery refers to the alleviation of psychiatric symptoms and the restoration of premorbid functioning (22,23). Previous studies have found that among people in recovery, those who reported more frequent stigmatizing experiences tended to have higher levels of depressive symptoms (24) and emotional discomfort (25), accounting for their baseline symptom severity. Drapalski and associates (26) went a step farther by incorporating self-stigma into the relationship between discrimination and clinical recovery and demonstrated that people who internalized stigmatizing experiences tended to have more severe psychiatric symptoms. In addition to examining self-stigma, previous investigations have shown that treatment disengagement was also related to more frequent reporting of psychiatric symptoms and relapse of illness (27). Killaspy and colleagues (28) found that persons with inconsistent patterns of psychiatric appointment attendance were associated with greater severity of mental illness and higher risks of hospital readmission.
Apart from the clinical aspect of recovery, personal recovery is conceptualized as an individual’s potential for attaining a self-directing and fulfilling life despite the impairments imposed by mental illness (12). The term “people in recovery” used throughout the article corresponds to the above understanding of recovery and positively conveys that individuals with mental illness can lead prosperous lives regardless of symptoms and dysfunctions associated with their mental health conditions. Studies have shown that people in recovery who had higher levels of perceived stigma and self-stigma were more likely to have diminished well-being and life satisfaction (29) as well as less fulfillment of personal goals and personal life meaning (30). Muñoz and colleagues (31) also underscored the importance of stigma and discrimination experience in aggravating self-stigma and diminishing the expectations of personal recovery. Although stigma is widely conceived to have adverse influences on recovery, very few studies have attempted to simultaneously investigate the effect of perceived discrimination and self-stigma on both clinical and personal recovery (20,21). This study aimed to offer an integrated understanding of recovery from both clinical and personal perspectives.
The extent to which mental health services are recovery oriented is pivotal in influencing service users’ level of service utilization and personal recovery (32,33). Recovery-oriented practice represents a fundamental shift from a disorder-focused approach to a holistic approach to psychiatric care that emphasizes shared decision making, user involvement in service delivery, and provision of strength-based and individualized services (34). Sells and colleagues (35) showed that people who received peer-based care management perceived higher positive regard and acceptance from their service providers and demonstrated greater engagement in community services than those who received regular care management. Other studies also indicated that recovery-based treatment orientation was associated with greater consumer empowerment, better quality of life, improved functioning, and higher satisfaction with services (36,37). Given its impact, recovery orientation of mental health services was accounted for in the hypothesized model.
This study empirically tested the mediating roles of self-stigma and service engagement in the relationship between perceived discrimination and recovery. We hypothesized that perceived discrimination from the general public and from health care professionals would be positively associated with self-stigma. Self-stigma would be negatively associated with clinical recovery and personal recovery. We hypothesized that perceived discrimination from both the general public and health care professionals and self-stigma would be negatively associated with service engagement, which would be positively associated with both clinical and personal recovery. Recovery orientation of mental health services would be positively associated with service engagement and personal recovery. Given that previous studies have shown that individuals with different psychiatric disorders experience varying levels of stigma (with individuals with psychotic disorders being the most stigmatized, followed by individuals with substance use disorders or with mood disorders) (38), this study investigated potential differences in the ways that perceived discrimination affects recovery among individuals with psychotic disorders, mood disorders, or substance use disorders.
Methods
The study was approved by the clinical research ethics committees of the authors’ institution and the hospitals involved in participant recruitment. A convenience sample of 374 people in recovery was recruited from seven public specialty outpatient clinics and substance abuse assessment clinics from various districts in Hong Kong. After giving informed consent, participants were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire. Upon completion, each participant received a HK$100 (US$13) coupon as compensation.
Measures
Perceived discrimination from the general public.
The ten-item discrimination subscale of the Stigma Scale is rated on a 5-point scale to assess the extent to which participants encountered discrimination in different spheres of their lives due to their mental illness (39,40). Higher scores indicate greater perceived discrimination from the general public (Cronbach’s α=.87).
Perceived discrimination from health care professionals.
Participants rated the four-item discrimination experience subscale of the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness scale on a 5-point frequency scale (41). Items were adapted to assess the extent to which participants encountered discriminatory behavior from their service providers. Higher scores indicate greater perceived discrimination from health care professionals (Cronbach’s α=.71).
Self-stigma.
The nine-item Self-Stigma Scale is rated on a 4-point scale to measure the extent to which participants internalize stigma toward people with mental illness (42). Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of self-stigma (Cronbach’s α=.91).
Mental health service engagement.
Participants rated the adapted 14-item Service Engagement Scale on a 4-point scale to assess their own engagement with psychiatric treatment and community mental health services (43). The phrase “the clients” in the original items was changed to “I” to make the items more relevant for self-report by people in recovery (44). Higher scores indicate greater service engagement (Cronbach’s α=.79).
Recovery orientation of services.
Participants rated the 32-item Recovery Self-Assessment–Revised Person in Recovery version on a 5-point scale to indicate the extent to which the mental health services they had received were recovery oriented (45,46). Higher scores indicate a greater extent of recovery orientation (Cronbach’s α=.93).
Clinical recovery.
The 24-item Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale, which has been validated among individuals with a wide range of psychiatric disorders, including psychotic disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders, was used to evaluate level of clinical recovery on a 5-point scale over six dimensions (depression and functioning, interpersonal relationships, psychosis, substance abuse, emotional lability, and self-harm) during the past week (47). The scores were reverse coded, with higher scores indicating better clinical recovery (Cronbach’s α=.92).
Personal recovery.
The 24-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) (48,49), the 27-item Recovery Markers Questionnaire (RMQ) (50,51), and the 18-item Test Life Satisfaction Scale (TLSS) (52,53) were used to measure, respectively, the subjective perception of personal recovery, process and intermediate outcomes of personal recovery, and life satisfaction. The three scales are rated on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating more positive perception of personal recovery (RAS), better recovery process (RMQ), and higher level of life satisfaction (TLSS). Cronbach’s alphas of the RAS, RMQ, and TLSS were .94, .95, and .95, respectively.
[Sample items and response category of the measures are provided in the online supplement to this article.]
Data Analysis
A two-step approach to structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted with Mplus version 5.1 (54). On confirmation of the latent factor structure with confirmatory factor analysis, we performed SEM to examine the hypothesized relationships in the proposed model (55). The overall model fit was assessed by a combination of fit indices, including chi-square statistics, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (56). In addition, a multisample SEM was conducted to examine whether the hypothesized relationships would hold across people with different mental illnesses. Invariance analysis suggested by Byrne (56) was performed to examine the measurement and structural equivalence across the three groups of people with different psychiatric diagnoses. Mediation effects were tested with the bootstrapping procedures recommended by Shrout and Bolger (57). Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals were estimated with 1,000 bootstrapped samples from the original data (58). The details of data analysis are provided in the online supplement .
Results
Among the 374 participants, half (50%, N=187) were male. The mean±SD age of the participants was 43.47±12.76 years. The most prevalent primary diagnosis that participants reported was mood disorders (43%, N=160), followed by substance use disorders (33%, N=124) and psychotic disorders (24%, N=90). Their mean duration of mental illness was 7.19±7.76 years. Close to two-thirds of the participants had attained secondary school education (63%, N=233). More than one-third of the participants were single (42%, N=157), and most were taking psychiatric medication (88%, N=326). Refer to Table 1 for participants’ demographic details.
| Characteristic | Psychotic disorders (N=90) | Mood disorders (N=160) | Substance use disorders (N=124) | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| Gender | <.001 | ||||||
| Male | 45 | 50 | 48 | 30 | 94 | 76 | |
| Female | 45 | 50 | 112 | 70 | 29 | 24 | |
| Age (M±SD) | 40.59±12.00 | 43.95±12.99 | 44.92±12.77 | ns | |||
| Education level | ns | ||||||
| Did not receive any education | 0 | — | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| Primary | 14 | 16 | 27 | 17 | 34 | 28 | |
| Secondary | 61 | 68 | 98 | 61 | 74 | 60 | |
| College preparatory | 4 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | |
| Bachelor’s degree or above | 10 | 11 | 25 | 16 | 8 | 7 | |
| Marital status | <.05 | ||||||
| Single | 52 | 59 | 59 | 37 | 46 | 38 | |
| Married | 26 | 30 | 55 | 35 | 46 | 38 | |
| Separated or divorced | 8 | 9 | 40 | 25 | 27 | 22 | |
| Widowed | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Years of diagnosis (M±SD) | 9.50±9.33 | 8.00±8.16 | 4.48±4.63 | <.001 | |||
| Taking psychiatric medication | <.001 | ||||||
| Yes | 84 | 93 | 150 | 94 | 92 | 75 | |
| No | 6 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 30 | 25 | |
Table 2 shows the intercorrelations between the variables. Results of the correlation analysis were consistent with our predictions and provided preliminary evidence for further analysis of the proposed model.
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Discrimination from the general public | — | ||||||||
| 2. Discrimination from health care professionals | .21*** | — | |||||||
| 3. Recovery orientation of services | –.02 | –.15** | — | ||||||
| 4. Self-stigma | .41*** | .29*** | –.13* | — | |||||
| 5. Service engagement | –.30*** | –.36*** | .20*** | .30*** | — | ||||
| 6. Clinical recovery | –.37*** | –.32*** | .16** | –.50*** | .44*** | — | |||
| 7. Recovery Assessment Scale score | –.20*** | –.15** | .31*** | –.41*** | .35*** | .54*** | — | ||
| 8. Recovery Markers Questionnaire | –.20*** | –.22*** | .30*** | –.46*** | .35*** | .67*** | .72*** | — | |
| 9. Life Satisfaction Scale score | –.25*** | –.20*** | .24*** | –.40*** | .30*** | .67*** | .66*** | .74*** | — |
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, by listwise deletion
Model on Recovery With the Entire Sample
Findings suggested a good fit of the measurement model (the relationship between observed indicators and latent constructs was explored in model 1). Model fit statistics are reported in Table 3. SEM that examined the hypothesized relationships in the proposed model (model 2) also showed a good model fit.
| Model | χ2b | df | CFI | TFI | RMSEA | 90% CI | Δχ2 | Δdf | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Measurement model in the entire sample | 508.52 | 254 | .95 | .94 | .052 | .045–.058 | |||
| 2. Structural model in the entire sample | 523.35 | 260 | .95 | .94 | .052 | .046–.058 | |||
| 3. Configural invariance across 3 subsamples | 1,199.67 | 764 | .92 | .90 | .068 | .060–.075 | |||
| 4. Factor loadings being constrained across three subsamples | 1,262.58 | 816 | .92 | .91 | .066 | .059–.073 | 62.90 | 52 | >.10 |
| 5. Structural parameters being constrained across 3 subsamples | 1,302.32 | 846 | .92 | .91 | .066 | .059–.073 | 39.74 | 30 | >.10 |
a
CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation
b
p<.001 for each model
Model on Recovery Across Diagnostic Groups
Multisample SEM was conducted to examine whether the hypothesized relationships would hold across the three subsamples. The configural invariant model (model 3) yielded an acceptable model fit, indicating that the same model configuration held across groups. Next, factor loadings of all variables were constrained to be equal across groups (model 4). Results showed an acceptable fit across groups. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicated that there was no significant difference in model fit between models 3 and 4, indicating that the invariance of factor loadings across groups was supported. Finally, structural parameters (including path coefficients and factor covariance) between all latent factors were constrained to be equal across the three subsamples (model 5). Results showed that the structural parameters–constrained model demonstrated a reasonable model fit, given its complexity (59). The nonsignificant result of the chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicated that model 5, which imposed equality constraints on structural parameters, was preferred. These findings suggest that the structural paths were equivalent across the three diagnostic groups. [The online appendix gives additional details about the results of the multisample SEM.] Table 4 shows the standardized estimates of the path coefficients and the variance accounted for by the final model.
| Path and variables | People with | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychotic disorders (N=90) | Mood disorders (N=160) | Substance use disorders (N=124) | |
| Path | Coefficient | ||
| Perceived discrimination (general public) → self-stigma | .44*** | .45*** | .45*** |
| Perceived discrimination (professionals) → self-stigma | .14* | .14* | .10* |
| Perceived discrimination (general public) → service engagement | –.18** | –.21** | –.19** |
| Perceived discrimination (professionals) → service engagement | –.27*** | –.32*** | –.20*** |
| Recovery orientation of services → service engagement | .19** | .21*** | .16** |
| Self-stigma → service engagement | –.13* | –.15* | –.13* |
| Self-stigma → clinical recovery | –.39*** | –.39*** | –.38*** |
| Service engagement → clinical recovery | .40*** | .34*** | .37*** |
| Self-stigma → personal recovery | –.37*** | –.35*** | –.38*** |
| Service engagement → personal recovery | .32*** | .26*** | .32*** |
| Recovery orientation of services → personal recovery | .23*** | .20*** | .19*** |
| Variable | Variance (%) | ||
| Self-stigma | 23.7 | 24.6 | 24.2 |
| Service engagement | 23.2 | 30.1 | 18.8 |
| Clinical recovery | 39.3 | 36.9 | 34.4 |
| Personal recovery | 40.1 | 32.4 | 35.6 |
*
p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Results of bootstrapping analysis indicated significant indirect effects of perceived discrimination from the general public on clinical recovery (b=–.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]=−.37 to −.16) and personal recovery (b=–.19, CI=−.28 to −.12), respectively, via self-stigma and service engagement. Similarly, results showed significant indirect effects of perceived discrimination from health care professionals on clinical recovery (b=–.19, CI=−.33 to −.09) and personal recovery (b=–.13, CI=−.24 to −.06), respectively, via self-stigma and service engagement. Finally, recovery orientation of services was found to have significant indirect effects on clinical recovery (b=.09, CI=.03 to .17) and personal recovery (b=.06, CI=.02 to .12), respectively, via service engagement.
Discussion
Consistent with others’ findings (16–18,31), this study showed that people in recovery who reported frequent instances of discrimination from the general public and from mental health professionals were more inclined than their peers to internalize the stigma associated with their mental illness and were less engaged in mental health services. In addition, people with higher self-stigma had lower levels of treatment engagement and illness self-management (19).
This study was one of the first to attempt to simultaneously examine clinical recovery and personal recovery in the context of discrimination among people recovering in mental illness. Building on the literature on discrimination and recovery, in this investigation we extended the predominantly clinical conceptualization of recovery by including the development of a meaningful life as one of the dimensions of recovery. This two-pronged conceptualization of recovery corresponds to the understanding that mental health is a state of holistic well-being and not merely the absence of mental infirmity (60). On the basis of our findings, perceived discrimination from both the general public and health care professionals was associated with increased internalization of stigma and reduced adherence of mental health services, thereby hindering clinical and personal recovery.
These findings highlight the importance of interventions that can effectively reduce stigma emanating from health care practitioners as well as from the general public. Antistigma training programs, which include personal stories from people with lived experience with mental illness and focus on building specific behavioral change skills, can be offered to service providers in social services and health care settings (61). Contact-based education also should be integrated into the core curriculum for health professional trainees to diminish stigma in regard to mental health (62). To empower people in recovery to reclaim an active role in managing their symptoms and leading a flourishing life, communitywide policies (including antidiscrimination laws and social inclusion initiatives) and intervention (such as advocacy and media campaigns) must be implemented to reduce discrimination and enhance the awareness of human rights in society (63). In addition, cognitive restructuring strategies can be used to challenge the stigmatizing beliefs among people in recovery to reduce their stereotype endorsement and self-concurrence (64,65). Future intervention can also target building critical consciousness to enable individuals to recognize the illegitimacy of discrimination and reject stigma as unjust, which can buffer the harmful effect of discrimination and protect against stigma internalization (66,67).
In addition to demonstrating the detrimental effects of discrimination, this study also revealed the direct and indirect effects of recovery orientation of mental health care on recovery. Specifically, people who perceived their services as less person centered, as limiting service users’ involvement, and as not offering choice and diversity were more prone to poorer personal recovery. Moreover, negative perceptions of the recovery orientation of services were associated with lower service engagement, which was associated with an amplification of psychiatric symptoms and a diminution of personally valued life. Given the importance of recovery-oriented services, we recommend that health care and human service providers consider bringing about a recovery-oriented transformation in their service design and delivery. For example, strengths-based assessment, person-centered care planning, and Wellness Recovery Action Planning have been introduced as recovery-promoting practices, with accumulating evidence supporting their efficacy and effectiveness in clinical and personal recovery (51,68–70). Organizations should also involve people with lived mental illness experience in service planning and provision, such as participation in advisory committees, staff development, and delivery of peer support services (71). The adoption of a recovery orientation may encourage people in recovery to participate fully in mental health services, thereby improving clinical and personal recovery (32).
With recognition of the complexity of discrimination and its effects on recovery, this study treated people with mental illness as a heterogeneous group and included people with different categories of psychiatric diagnoses. We asked whether the experience of discrimination would universally or differentially affect recovery among people with psychotic disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders. As shown in the multisample analysis, perceived discrimination from the general public and health care professionals intensified self-stigma among people with different types of mental illness and hampered their service adherence, resulting in poorer clinical and personal recovery. Our findings offer empirical evidence that the underlying mechanism of discrimination and recovery concerns people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders but also people with other disorders, unlike what has been reported in the extant literature (12,20,21). Although people with psychotic disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders might experience varying levels of discrimination from the general public and health care professionals, the influence of discrimination on recovery was found to be universal and could be generalized across people with different psychiatric diagnoses.
Despite the contributions of this study, some methodological limitations should be noted. First, the hypothesized relationships among the variables were tested on the basis of cross-sectional data, which restricted our ability to draw causal inferences. Future studies should consider adopting a longitudinal research design in which serial assessments of the same participants are obtained over multiple time points. Second, given that this study relied solely on self-report instruments, validity of the findings may be limited. To reduce the potential bias of self-report data and enhance assessment validity, we recommend that future studies incorporate behavioral measures in assessing service engagement and symptom severity. Confirmation of the participants’ primary diagnosis should also be sought from their service providers in future studies.
Conclusions
This study constituted a cross-diagnostic investigation by examining the impact of discrimination on clinical and personal recovery among people with psychotic disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders. From the perspective of policy implication, our findings on the deleterious effects of discrimination strongly suggest the need for evidence-based antistigma initiatives that are designed to dispel misconceptions associated with mental illness and eradicate discriminatory behaviors against people with mental illness. Furthermore, findings regarding the positive impact of recovery-oriented services suggest that health care and human service institutions should consider adopting recovery-oriented practices and conduct systematic evaluation of their effectiveness.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Grace Leung and the staff of outpatient psychiatric clinics or substance abuse assessment clinics at the following hospitals for their assistance in data collection (in alphabetical order): Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, Castle Peak Hospital, East Kowloon Psychiatric Centre, Kwai Chung Hospital, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin Hospital, and Northern District Hospital.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201500339.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 129.90 KB
References
1.
Cook JE, Purdie-Vaughns V, Meyer IH, et al: Intervening within and across levels: a multilevel approach to stigma and public health. Social Science and Medicine 103:101–109, 2014
2.
Thornicroft C, Wyllie A, Thornicroft G, et al: Impact of the “Like Minds, Like Mine” anti-stigma and discrimination campaign in New Zealand on anticipated and experienced discrimination. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 48:360–370, 2014
3.
Lee S, Lee MT, Chiu MY, et al: Experience of social stigma by people with schizophrenia in Hong Kong. British Journal of Psychiatry 186:153–157, 2005
4.
Peterson D, Pere L, Sheehan N, et al: Experiences of mental health discrimination in New Zealand. Health and Social Care in the Community 15:18–25, 2007
5.
Corrigan P, Thompson V, Lambert D, et al: Perceptions of discrimination among persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 54:1105–1110, 2003
6.
Schulze B: Stigma and mental health professionals: a review of the evidence on an intricate relationship. International Review of Psychiatry 19:137–155, 2007
7.
Ross CA, Goldner EM: Stigma, negative attitudes and discrimination towards mental illness within the nursing profession: a review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 16:558–567, 2009
8.
Lee S, Chiu MY, Tsang A, et al: Stigmatizing experience and structural discrimination associated with the treatment of schizophrenia in Hong Kong. Social Science and Medicine 62:1685–1696, 2006
9.
Schulze B, Angermeyer MC: Subjective experiences of stigma: a focus group study of schizophrenic patients, their relatives and mental health professionals. Social Science and Medicine 56:299–312, 2003
10.
Jorm AF, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, et al: Attitudes towards people with a mental disorder: a survey of the Australian public and health professionals. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 33:77–83, 1999
11.
Reavley NJ, Mackinnon AJ, Morgan AJ, et al: Stigmatising attitudes towards people with mental disorders: a comparison of Australian health professionals with the general community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 48:433–441, 2014
12.
Davidson L, O’Connell MJ, Tondora J, et al: Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just a new bottle? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 36:480–487, 2005
13.
Mak WW, Poon CY, Pun LY, et al: Meta-analysis of stigma and mental health. Social Science and Medicine 65:245–261, 2007
14.
Corrigan PW, Watson AC: The paradox of self‐stigma and mental illness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9:35–53, 2002
15.
Corrigan PW, Druss BG, Perlick DA: The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15:37–70, 2014
16.
Fung KM, Tsang HW, Corrigan PW: Self-stigma of people with schizophrenia as predictor of their adherence to psychosocial treatment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 32:95–104, 2008
17.
Sirey JA, Bruce ML, Alexopoulos GS, et al: Stigma as a barrier to recovery: perceived stigma and patient-rated severity of illness as predictors of antidepressant drug adherence. Psychiatric Services 52:1615–1620, 2001
18.
Sirey JA, Bruce ML, Alexopoulos GS, et al: Perceived stigma as a predictor of treatment discontinuation in young and older outpatients with depression. American Journal of Psychiatry 158:479–481, 2001
19.
Livingston JD, Boyd JE: Correlates and consequences of internalized stigma for people living with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science and Medicine 71:2150–2161, 2010
20.
Landeen JL, Seeman MV, Goering P, et al: Schizophrenia: effect of perceived stigma on two dimensions of recovery. Clinical Schizophrenia and Related Psychoses 1:64–68, 2007
21.
Yanos PT, Roe D, Markus K, et al: Pathways between internalized stigma and outcomes related to recovery in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Psychiatric Services 59:1437–1442, 2008
22.
Barber ME: Recovery as the new medical model for psychiatry. Psychiatric Services 63:277–279, 2012
23.
Liberman RP, Kopelowicz A, Ventura J, et al: Operational criteria and factors related to recovery from schizophrenia. International Review of Psychiatry 14:256–272, 2002
24.
Link BG, Struening EL, Rahav M, et al: On stigma and its consequences: evidence from a longitudinal study of men with dual diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 38:177–190, 1997
25.
Lysaker PH, Davis LW, Warman DM, et al: Stigma, social function and symptoms in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: associations across 6 months. Psychiatry Research 149:89–95, 2007
26.
Drapalski AL, Lucksted A, Perrin PB, et al: A model of internalized stigma and its effects on people with mental illness. Psychiatric Services 64:264–269, 2013
27.
Young AS, Grusky O, Jordan D, et al: Routine outcome monitoring in a public mental health system: the impact of patients who leave care. Psychiatric Services 51:85–91, 2000
28.
Killaspy H, Banerjee S, King M, et al: Prospective controlled study of psychiatric out-patient non-attendance: characteristics and outcome. British Journal of Psychiatry 176:160–165, 2000
29.
Rosenfield S: Labeling mental illness: the effects of received services and perceived stigma on life satisfaction. American Sociological Review 62:660–672, 1997
30.
Markowitz FE: Modeling processes in recovery from mental illness: relationships between symptoms, life satisfaction, and self-concept. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 42:64–79, 2001
31.
Muñoz M, Sanz M, Pérez-Santos E, et al: Proposal of a socio-cognitive-behavioral structural equation model of internalized stigma in people with severe and persistent mental illness. Psychiatry Research 186:402–408, 2011
32.
Meehan TJ, King RJ, Beavis PH, et al: Recovery-based practice: do we know what we mean or mean what we know? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 42:177–182, 2008
33.
Wu F, Fu L, Hser Y: Effects of a recovery management intervention on Chinese heroin users’ community recovery through the mediation effect of enhanced service utilization. Journal of Public Health 37:521–528, 2015.
34.
Framework for Recovery-Oriented Practice. Melbourne, Australia, Victorian Government Department of Health, Mental Health, Drugs and Regions Division, 2011
35.
Sells D, Davidson L, Jewell C, et al: The treatment relationship in peer-based and regular case management for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 57:1179–1184, 2006
36.
Barrett B, Young MS, Teague GB, et al: Recovery orientation of treatment, consumer empowerment, and satisfaction with services: a mediational model. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 34:153–156, 2010
37.
Kidd SA, George L, O’Connell M, et al: Recovery-oriented service provision and clinical outcomes in assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 34:194–201, 2011
38.
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. American Journal of Psychiatry 167:1321–1330, 2010
39.
King M, Dinos S, Shaw J, et al: The Stigma Scale: development of a standardised measure of the stigma of mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry 190:248–254, 2007
40.
Brohan E, Slade M, Clement S, et al: Experiences of mental illness stigma, prejudice and discrimination: a review of measures. BMC Health Services Research 10:80, 2010
41.
Ritsher JB, Otilingam PG, Grajales M: Internalized stigma of mental illness: psychometric properties of a new measure. Psychiatry Research 121:31–49, 2003
42.
Mak WW, Cheung RY: Self-stigma among concealable minorities in Hong Kong: conceptualization and unified measurement. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 80:267–281, 2010
43.
Tait L, Birchwood M, Trower P: A new scale (SES) to measure engagement with community mental health services. Journal of Mental Health 11:191–198, 2002
44.
Clement S, Williams P, Farrelly S, et al: Mental health–related discrimination as a predictor of low engagement with mental health services. Psychiatric Services 66:171–176, 2015
45.
O’Connell M, Tondora J, Croog G, et al: From rhetoric to routine: assessing perceptions of recovery-oriented practices in a state mental health and addiction system. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 28:378–386, 2005
46.
Ye S, Pan J-Y, Wong DFK, et al: Cross-validation of mental health recovery measures in a Hong Kong Chinese sample. Research on Social Work Practice 23:311–325, 2013
47.
Eisen SV, Normand S-L, Belanger AJ, et al: The Revised Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-R): reliability and validity. Medical Care 42:1230–1241, 2004
48.
Giffort D, Schmook A, Woody C, et al: Construction of a Scale to Measure Consumer Recovery. Springfield, Illinois Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Mental Health, 1995
49.
Mak WW, Chan RC, Yau SS: Validation of the Recovery Assessment Scale for Chinese in recovery of mental illness in Hong Kong. Quality of Life Research 25:1303–1311, 2016
50.
Ridgway P, Press A: Assessing the Recovery-Orientation of Your Mental Health Program: A User’s Guide for the Recovery-Enhancing Environment Scale (REE). Lawrence, University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare, Office of Mental Health Training and Research, 2004
51.
Mak WWS, Chan RCH, Pang IHY, et al: Effectiveness of Wellness Recovery Action Planning (WRAP) for Chinese in Hong Kong. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 19:231–251, 2016
52.
Test MA, Greenberg JS, Long JD, et al: Construct validity of a measure of subjective satisfaction with life of adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 56:292–300, 2005
53.
Chan KK, Mak WW: The mediating role of self-stigma and unmet needs on the recovery of people with schizophrenia living in the community. Quality of Life Research 23:2559–2568, 2014
54.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103:411–423, 1988
55.
Russell DW, Kahn JH, Spoth R, et al: Analyzing data from experimental studies: a latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology 45:18–29, 1998
56.
Byrne BM: Structural Equation Modeling With Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, Taylor and Francis, 2012
57.
Shrout PE, Bolger N: Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7:422–445, 2002
58.
Cheung GW, Lau RS: Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods 11:296–325, 2007
59.
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB: Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9:233–255, 2002
60.
Mental Health: Strengthening Our Purpose. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2014
61.
Knaak S, Modgill G, Patten SB: Key ingredients of anti-stigma programs for health care providers: a data synthesis of evaluative studies. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 59(suppl 1):S19–S26, 2014
62.
Patten SB, Remillard A, Phillips L, et al: Effectiveness of contact-based education for reducing mental illness–related stigma in pharmacy students. BMC Medical Education 12:120, 2012
63.
Heijnders M, Van Der Meij S: The fight against stigma: an overview of stigma-reduction strategies and interventions. Psychology, Health and Medicine 11:353–363, 2006
64.
Watson AC, Corrigan P, Larson JE, et al: Self-stigma in people with mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin 33:1312–1318, 2007
65.
Mittal D, Sullivan G, Chekuri L, et al: Empirical studies of self-stigma reduction strategies: a critical review of the literature. Psychiatric Services 63:974–981, 2012
66.
Rüsch N, Lieb K, Bohus M, et al: Self-stigma, empowerment, and perceived legitimacy of discrimination among women with mental illness. Psychiatric Services 57:399–402, 2006
67.
Watts RJ, Griffith DM, Abdul-Adil J: Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression: theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology 27:255–271, 1999
68.
Cook JA, Copeland ME, Hamilton MM, et al: Initial outcomes of a mental illness self-management program based on Wellness Recovery Action Planning. Psychiatric Services 60:246–249, 2009
69.
Stanhope V, Ingoglia C, Schmelter B, et al: Impact of person-centered planning and collaborative documentation on treatment adherence. Psychiatric Services 64:76–79, 2013
70.
Cox KF: Investigating the impact of strength-based assessment on youth with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies 15:278–292, 2006
71.
Lammers J, Happell B: Consumer participation in mental health services: looking from a consumer perspective. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 10:385–392, 2003
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Love of Winter, by George Wesley Bellows, 1914. Oil on canvas. Friends of American Art Collection (1914.1018), the Art Institute of Chicago. Photography ©The Art Institute of Chicago, www.artic.edu.
History
Received: 14 August 2015
Revision received: 18 March 2016
Accepted: 6 July 2016
Published online: 15 November 2016
Published in print: February 01, 2017
Keywords
Authors
Funding Information
Food and Health Bureau Commissioned Research on Mental Health Policy and Services: SMH-014
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.).