Self-Stigma and Consumer Participation in Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Services
Abstract
Objective:
People with mental illness struggle with symptoms and with public stigma. Some accept common prejudices and lose self-esteem, resulting in shame and self-stigma, which may affect their interactions with mental health professionals. This study explored whether self-stigma and shame are associated with consumers’ preferences for participation in medical decision making and their behavior in psychiatric consultations.
Methods:
In a cross-sectional study conducted in Germany, 329 individuals with a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or an affective disorder and their psychiatrists provided sociodemographic and illness-related information. Self-stigma, shame, locus of control, and views about clinical decision making were assessed by self-report. Psychiatrists rated their impression of the decision-making behavior of consumers. Regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to determine the association of self-stigma and shame with clinical decision making.
Results:
Self-stigma was not related to consumers’ participation preferences, but it was associated with some aspects of communicative behavior. Active and critical behavior (for example, expressing views, daring to challenge the doctor’s opinion, and openly speaking out about disagreements with the doctor) was associated with less shame, less self-stigma, more self-responsibility, less attribution of external control to powerful others, and more years of education.
Conclusions:
Self-stigma and shame were associated with less participative and critical behavior, which probably leads to clinical encounters that involve less shared decision making and more paternalistic decision making. Paternalistic decision making may reinforce self-stigma and lead to poorer health outcomes. Therefore, interventions that reduce self-stigma and increase consumers’ critical and participative communication may improve health outcomes.
In recent years, perceptions of ideal doctor-client interactions have shifted from the paternalistic model to a more consumer-oriented approach. In particular, the model of shared decision making (SDM) has attracted attention (1). SDM aims to change the traditional power asymmetry between doctors and patients by strengthening the exchange of information and the decisional position of patients. There are many good reasons for supporting SDM, including ethical (clients’ basic right to participate in decision making), sociological (changes in clients’ expectations), and utilitarian (increasing clients’ satisfaction and improving adherence) arguments (2).
To implement SDM, physicians and clients must change their accustomed communicative behaviors. Physicians must follow certain steps to reach shared decisions (for example, sharing information and offering choices) (3). In addition, clients should exhibit certain competencies for SDM (4). Many authors have suggested that consumers should play a more active role in consultation and in decision making (5). Several client skills or behaviors have been proposed as being helpful for SDM (5,6)—for example, showing an interest in therapy, paying attention to what the doctor says, and actively seeking information from the doctor about the disorder and treatment options (7). Although these competencies are doubtless helpful for arriving at shared decisions, they do not really differentiate between client behavior in the paternalistic model and in SDM. For example, client behavior that is clearly atypical in the paternalistic model but typical in SDM involves expressing one’s views, daring to challenge the doctor’s opinion, and openly speaking out about disagreements with the doctor, which has been labeled “critical and participative communication” (7).
Many people with mental illness do not express their views in medical consultations (6). Therefore, several studies have sought to identify predictors of patients’ preferences in regard to decision making. Younger age, higher education, dissatisfaction with treatment, and attribution of control are a few of the patient characteristics that have been found to be associated with greater preferences for participating in decision making (8). With respect to patient behavior, results of a qualitative study suggest that factors such as depressive symptoms, thought disorder, lack of motivation or interest, and a feeling of powerlessness are barriers to active patient behavior that might facilitate SDM (6).
Although not yet addressed in research, another important barrier to more active patient behavior may be self-stigma, which is common among people with affective and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (9,10). Some people with mental illness accept the common prejudices of society and lose self-esteem, resulting in shame and self-stigma (11). Self-stigma can lead to a “why try” effect (for example, “I am not able to work” or “I am not worthy to receive good mental health care”), resulting in adverse outcomes, such as demoralization or poor goal attainment (12). In addition, self-stigma has been linked to reduced seeking of mental health information (13), less service use (14), and poor quality of the therapeutic alliance (15), indicating that self-stigma may affect interactions in clinical settings.
Thus, consumers with high self-stigma might have less desire to participate in decision making and may exhibit more passive behavior in clinical settings (“Why should I try to engage in medical decision making?”). These individuals may be less likely to engage in and benefit from SDM because SDM requires active input from consumers. Individuals with high self-stigma could thus be more frequently involved in paternalistic decision making (5), which is less likely to support self-management and empowerment. In the long run, this may be another way in which self-stigma leads to poorer health outcomes.
This study aimed to explore whether self-stigma and shame are associated with consumers’ participation preferences and behavior in consultations. We expected that higher levels of self-stigma and shame would lead to more passive behavior in mental health consultations.
Methods
We used data from a large cross-sectional study that aimed to develop a new measure for client behavior in the psychiatric consultation. From March to December 2014, we recruited participants with either a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (N=126) or an affective disorder (N=203) diagnosis. Inpatient units of various psychiatric hospitals in Germany and outpatient departments and psychiatric practitioners were approached. All patients willing to participate were recruited. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (Ethikkommission) of the Technische Universität München, Germany.
Patient data were obtained for the measure that was being developed, and this information will be reported elsewhere (Kohl S, Bühner M, unpublished manuscript, 2017). For this study, other patient information was used, including age, gender, education, diagnosis (according to the hospital records), and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores. Participants also completed questionnaires about self-stigma and aspects of clinical decision making, and their physicians rated their impression of the patients’ decision-making behavior.
Measures
Self-stigma.
Self-stigma was assessed by the five-item self-concurrence subscale of the Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale–Short Form (sample item: “Because I have a mental illness, I am dangerous”) (16). Possible scores range from 5 to 45, with higher scores indicating higher self-stigma. For our sample, the mean±SD score was 12.5±6.5 (Cronbach's α=.62). Shame about having a mental illness was rated by one self-report item (“I am ashamed to have a mental illness”) as in previous studies (17,18), from 1, not at all, to 9, very much. In our sample, the mean score was 4.1±2.8.
Clinical decision making.
Consumers’ participation preferences were obtained by using the Autonomy Preference Index (API), a four-item measure addressing consumers’ desire to participate in decision making (19). Possible scores range from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater preferences for participation. In our sample, the mean score was 10.4±3.9 (Cronbach's α=.78). Communication competence of consumers in the psychiatric consultation was self-reported on three subscales of the Communication Competence Questionnaire (CoCo): adherence in communication (nine items; possible score range 9–54; sample item: “I listened very carefully to what the doctor was explaining”), critical and participative communication (nine items; possible score range 9–54; sample item: “Whenever my opinion differed from the doctor’s, I said so clearly”), and active disease-related communication (five items; possible score range 5–30; sample item: “I posed many questions regarding my treatment in general”) (7). Higher scores on each of the three scales indicate greater competence in the respective domain. Mean scores in our sample were as follows: adherence in communication, 44.8±5.9 (Cronbach's α=.89); critical and participative communication, 39.8±7.2 (Cronbach's α=.75); active disease-related communication, 21.3±4.5 (Cronbach's α=.82).
The CoCo measure has been validated in German and covers important aspects of communication competence that have been addressed previously in English measures (20). Critical communication, which covers several aspects of active, assertive, and self-efficacious behavior in the consultation, is regarded as a prerequisite of successful client communication. This kind of active behavior is acknowledged as helpful by a majority of physicians (21). In addition to the CoCo as a self-report measure, we asked physicians to rate the degree of critical communication exhibited by consumers with a single item, ranging from 1, never, to 5, always. The mean score for our sample was 2.7±.9.
Locus of control.
The concept of locus of control has been linked with participation preferences, but results are inconsistent. Thus external control attribution (that is, attributing recovery to “powerful others” or “chance”) was strongly associated with lower participation preferences in one patient group, but it showed no association in another (8). To control for this factor, we applied the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales (22). This questionnaire consists of four three-item subscales addressing self-control, self-blame, chance, and powerful others. According to the concept of health locus of control, clients with low external and high internal locus of control (that is, attributing changes in one’s health to one’s own behavior) are assumed to prefer more active problem solution strategies, leading to a pronounced wish for participation in medical decisions. Possible scores on each of the four scales range from 3 to 15, with higher scores indicating greater expression in that domain. Mean scores for our sample were as follows: self-responsibility, 9.8±2.2 (Cronbach's α=.73); self-blame, 7.9±2.4 (Cronbach's α=.72); powerful others, 8.9±2.3 (Cronbach’s α=.56); and chance, 7.0±2.6 (Cronbach's α=.75).
Statistical Analysis
All scales were coded such that higher scores represented higher levels of the respective characteristic. We first assessed bivariate correlations between self-stigma, shame, and the decision-related variables (Autonomy Preference Index, CoCo subscales, and physicians’ rating of consumers’ critical communication). For variables that showed significant correlations with the three CoCo subscales or the physicians’ rating, we calculated linear regression analyses, with the decision-related variables as dependent variables and self-stigma/shame as independent variables. In all regression analyses, we controlled for age, gender, education (less than ten years versus ten years or more), diagnosis (schizophrenia spectrum versus affective disorder), GAF scores, and the locus of control subscales.
Because we had ratings for critical behavior from both clients and physicians, we then used a structural equation approach with maximum likelihood estimation (variances and loadings) to predict this construct. The model corresponds to a multiple regression with 11 independent and one dependent variable—the latent variable “critical participation.” This latent variable had two indicators (the consumer-rated CoCo subscale on critical participation and physician-rated critical participation) and corresponded to the common variance of these indicators. All analyses were performed with SPSS/AMOS. A p value of <.05 was considered significant.
Results
Overall, 329 participants were recruited from four inpatient (N=242) and two outpatient (N=87) sites. Of the 329 participants, 187 (57%) were female, and the mean age was 43.3±12.9. About a third (N=126, 38%) had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder), and about two-thirds (N=203, 62%) had affective disorders (unipolar depression or bipolar disorder). Higher self-stigma was associated with significantly lower communication competence (CoCo) scores and with lower physician-rated critical communication but not with participation preferences, as measured by the Autonomy Preference Index (Table 1). Greater shame was related only to lower self-reported critical and disease-related communication.
| CoCob | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measure | Shame | APIa | Adherence in communication | Critical and participative communication | Active disease-related communication | Critical communication (physician rating) |
| Self-stigma | .344** | –.093 | –.207** | –.372** | –.173** | –.203** |
| Shame | .016 | –.083 | –.276** | –.181** | –.041 | |
| API | –.212** | .183** | –.023 | .202** | ||
| CoCo | ||||||
| Adherence in communication | .273** | .382** | –.002 | |||
| Critical and participative communication | .547** | .246** | ||||
| Active disease-related communication | .140* | |||||
a
Autonomy Preference Index
b
CoCo, Communication Competence Questionnaire
*
p<.05, **p<.01
Linear Regression Analyses
In the regression analyses (Table 2), we controlled for age, gender, education, diagnosis, GAF scores, and the locus of control subscale scores. Better adherence in communication was associated with lower self-stigma, a diagnosis of affective disorder, and higher scores on the scale for powerful others. More critical and participative communication was associated with lower self-stigma, less shame, more self-responsibility, and less attribution of control to powerful others. No significant predictors were noted for active disease-related communication; at a trend level (p>.05), less self-stigma and less shame were related to more active communication. The physician rating of critical client behavior was associated with lower self-stigma, less attribution of control to powerful others, and more years of education.
| Adherence in communication | Critical and participative communication | Active disease-related communication | Critical communication (physician rating) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p |
| Age | .05 | .41 | –.06 | .30 | .03 | .62 | .06 | .31 |
| Gender | .05 | .43 | .05 | .44 | –.06 | .32 | –.02 | .73 |
| Education | .00 | .96 | .03 | .61 | .09 | .15 | .19 | .003 |
| Schizophreniab | .22 | .001 | –.01 | .93 | .04 | .56 | –.02 | .81 |
| Global Assessment of Functioning | –.03 | .68 | –.07 | .25 | .06 | .38 | –.03 | .66 |
| Locus of control | ||||||||
| Self-responsibility | .01 | .95 | .18 | .011 | .07 | .37 | .04 | .59 |
| Self-blame | –.00 | .95 | –.11 | .13 | –.08 | .31 | .06 | .41 |
| Powerful others | .18 | .006 | –.21 | .001 | –.04 | .52 | –.21 | .001 |
| Chance | –.05 | .47 | –.03 | .68 | .09 | .20 | .05 | .45 |
| Shame | –.04 | .60 | –.17 | .008 | –.13 | .07 | .00 | .98 |
| Self-stigma | –.22 | .002 | –.28 | <.001 | –.12 | .09 | –.19 | .004 |
a
Model R2 values: adherence in communication, .12; critical and participative communication, .25; active disease-related communication, .08; critical communication (physician rating), .13
b
Coded as 1; affective disorder, coded as 2
Structural Equation Approach
The latent variable “critical participation” (measured by the CoCo subscale for critical participation and by physician-rated critical participation) was predicted by more years of education, less shame, less self-stigma, more self-responsibility, and less attribution of control to powerful others (Figure 1). Model fit was sufficient (root mean square error of approximation=.061, comparative fit index=.970) and within the guidelines proposed by Hu and Bentler (23).
FIGURE 1. Structural equation model of predictors of critical participation in interactions with psychiatrists among 329 participantsa
aGAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; LOC, locus of control. The latent variable (critical participation) had two indicators: consumer-rated and physician-rated critical participation. Standardized regression weights (betas) of predictors are on the left, and regression weights (betas) of the scales are on the right. Correlations between the predictors were omitted for clarity, although the analysis specified these correlations. *p<.05, **p<.001
Discussion
Our findings suggest that self-stigma and shame are not related to consumers’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making. On the other hand, higher self-stigma may hinder clients’ adherence in communication (for example, their ability to pay close attention to what is discussed). In our view, the main finding is that self-stigma and shame were associated with reduced critical and participative communication. This type of communication refers to consumers’ expressing their views, daring to challenge the doctor’s opinion, and openly speaking out about disagreements (7) and may be regarded as a prerequisite for SDM. Thus it is this area of impaired client communication competence that is most related to self-stigma and shame.
If clients suffer from self-stigma and shame, then their behavior may be less participatory and less critical, which probably leads to less SDM and more paternalistic decision making with their doctors (24). Such a scenario may reinforce self-stigma and lead to poorer health outcomes. On the other hand, clients who interact more passively with their psychiatrists are likely to have less influence on their treatment, which may reinforce self-stereotypes (“I am incompetent”) and the “why try” effect. As noted above, self-stigma has to our best knowledge not yet been studied in the context of SDM. Thus our results add a new and potentially important aspect to the discussion that might also be relevant for patients with general medical illnesses.
Implications
Given the interdependency of self-stigma and active patient behavior and the known negative consequences for patient outcomes of self-stigma (12) and non–patient-centered communication (25), it seems reasonable to address these issues to improve health outcomes. Various approaches exist to reduce self-stigma and shame about having a mental illness (26). Psychoeducational or cognitive interventions attempt to correct irrational self-stigmatizing thoughts (27). Narrative interventions aim to increase participants’ abilities to develop positive stories about themselves and their illness, as well as their lives and achievements, that are less focused on deficits and (self-)stigma (28). Acceptance-based programs have shown success in reducing shame among people with substance use disorders (29). Honest Open Proud (formerly Coming Out Proud), a peer-led group intervention to support participants in making disclosure decisions, reduces stigma-related stress and self-stigma (30,31). Overall, however, current evidence for the efficacy of these interventions is not strong (32). To improve SDM and to better engage consumers in medical encounters, interventions can teach physicians to communicate nondirectively, to ask about patient preferences, and to motivate them to express their preferences (33). Other interventions can empower patients for doctor-patient interactions (34) or offer decision support tools (2). Effects of these interventions are small but promising (35–37).
Little evidence has been found regarding effects of SDM interventions on self-stigma and vice versa, but first results suggest an association between SDM and greater patient empowerment (37). Therefore, we suggest that interventions addressing either self-stigma or patients’ behavior toward their physicians may positively influence each other and lead to better health outcomes (11). More emphasis on these issues should be paid not only in clinical practice but also in health policies.
Limitations
Our cross-sectional data preclude conclusions about causality. Some measures were quite brief or showed low internal consistency. Finally, our analyses explain only a small proportion of the variance, which suggests that other factors—for example, personality traits or previous experiences with psychiatric treatment—may influence patient behavior in the consultation.
Conclusions
This first study of self-stigma and SDM showed that self-stigma was associated with less critical and participatory behavior of people with mental illness. Further research should address the interplay of stigma, decision making, and empowerment in more detail. Future studies should examine how addressing one of these constructs affects the others.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Sarah Kohl, M.D., for collecting the data, as well as all study participants.
References
1.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 44:681–692, 1997
2.
Beitinger R, Kissling W, Hamann J: Trends and perspectives of shared decision-making in schizophrenia and related disorders. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 27:222–229, 2014
3.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, et al: Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice 50:892–899, 2000
4.
Towle A, Godolphin W: Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ 319:766–771, 1999
5.
Cegala DJ: Emerging trends and future directions in patient communication skills training. Health Communication 20:123–129, 2006
6.
Hamann J, Kohl S, McCabe R, et al: What can patients do to facilitate shared decision making? A qualitative study of patients with depression or schizophrenia and psychiatrists. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 51:617–625, 2016
7.
Farin E, Schmidt E, Gramm L: Patient communication competence: development of a German questionnaire and correlates of competent patient behavior. Patient Education and Counseling 94:342–350, 2014
8.
Hamann J, Mendel R, Reiter S, et al: Why do some patients with schizophrenia want to be engaged in medical decision making and others do not? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 72:1636–1643, 2011
9.
Brohan E, Elgie R, Sartorius N, et al: Self-stigma, empowerment and perceived discrimination among people with schizophrenia in 14 European countries: the GAMIAN-Europe study. Schizophrenia Research 122:232–238, 2010
10.
Brohan E, Gauci D, Sartorius N, et al: Self-stigma, empowerment and perceived discrimination among people with bipolar disorder or depression in 13 European countries: the GAMIAN-Europe study. Journal of Affective Disorders 129:56–63, 2011
11.
Link BG, Struening EL, Neese-Todd S, et al: Stigma as a barrier to recovery: the consequences of stigma for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services 52:1621–1626, 2001
12.
Corrigan PW, Bink AB, Schmidt A, et al: What is the impact of self-stigma? Loss of self-respect and the “why try” effect. Journal of Mental Health 25:10–15, 2016
13.
Lannin DG, Vogel DL, Brenner RE, et al: Does self-stigma reduce the probability of seeking mental health information? Journal of Counseling Psychology 63:351–358, 2016
14.
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. Psychological Medicine 45:11–27, 2015
15.
Kvrgic S, Cavelti M, Beck EM, et al: Therapeutic alliance in schizophrenia: the role of recovery orientation, self-stigma, and insight. Psychiatry Research 209:15–20, 2013
16.
Corrigan PW, Michaels PJ, Vega E, et al: Self-stigma of Mental Illness Scale–Short Form: reliability and validity. Psychiatry Research 199:65–69, 2012
17.
Rüsch N, Müller M, Ajdacic-Gross V, et al: Shame, perceived knowledge and satisfaction associated with mental health as predictors of attitude patterns towards help-seeking. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 23:177–187, 2014
18.
Rüsch N, Corrigan PW, Heekeren K, et al: Well-being among persons at risk of psychosis: the role of self-labeling, shame, and stigma stress. Psychiatric Services 65:483–489, 2014
19.
Simon D, Kriston L, Loh A, et al: Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy Preference Index (API). Health Expectations 13:234–243, 2010
20.
Cegala DJ, Coleman MT, Turner JW: The development and partial assessment of the Medical Communication Competence Scale. Health Communication 10:261–288, 1998
21.
Hamann J, Mendel R, Bühner M, et al: How should patients behave to facilitate shared decision making: the doctors’ view. Health Expectations 15:360–366, 2012
22.
Wallston BS, Wallston KA, Kaplan GD, et al: Development and validation of the Health Locus of Control (HLC) Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 44:580–585, 1976
23.
Hu L, Bentler PM: Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3:424–453, 1998
24.
Cegala DJ, Post DM: The impact of patients’ participation on physicians’ patient-centered communication. Patient Education and Counseling 77:202–208, 2009
25.
Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al: The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. Journal of Family Practice 49:796–804, 2000
26.
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
27.
Lucksted A, Drapalski AL, Brown CH, et al: Outcomes of a psychoeducational intervention to reduce internalized stigma among psychosocial rehabilitation clients. Psychiatric Services (Epub ahead of print, Dec 1, 2016)
28.
Yanos PT, Roe D, Lysaker PH: Narrative enhancement and cognitive therapy: a new group-based treatment for internalized stigma among persons with severe mental illness. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 61:577–595, 2011
29.
Luoma JB, Kohlenberg BS, Hayes SC, et al: Slow and steady wins the race: a randomized clinical trial of acceptance and commitment therapy targeting shame in substance use disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 80:43–53, 2012
30.
Corrigan PW, Larson JE, Michaels PJ, et al: Diminishing the self-stigma of mental illness by coming out proud. Psychiatry Research 229:148–154, 2015
31.
Rüsch N, Abbruzzese E, Hagedorn E, et al: Efficacy of Coming Out Proud to reduce stigma’s impact among people with mental illness: pilot randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 204:391–397, 2014
32.
Thornicroft G, Mehta N, Clement S, et al: Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma and discrimination. Lancet 387:1123–1132, 2016
33.
Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, et al: The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Education and Counseling 67:324–332, 2007
34.
Hamann J, Mendel R, Meier A, et al: “How to speak to your psychiatrist”: shared decision-making training for inpatients with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services 62:1218–1221, 2011
35.
Duncan E, Best C, Hagen S: Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1:CD007297, 2010
36.
Hamann J, Cohen R, Leucht S, et al: Shared decision making and long-term outcome in schizophrenia treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 68:992–997, 2007
37.
Stovell D, Morrison AP, Panayiotou M, et al: Shared treatment decision-making and empowerment-related outcomes in psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry 209:23–28, 2016
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Michigan Summer, by Ivan Albright, no date. Watercolor and gouache on paper. Mary and Earle Ludgin Collection, 1981.1164. © The Art Institute of Chicago.
History
Received: 20 June 2016
Revision received: 28 October 2016
Revision received: 3 January 2017
Accepted: 25 January 2017
Published online: 17 April 2017
Published in print: August 01, 2017
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Hamann reports receipt of lecture honoraria or research grants from Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson, and Otsuka. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung10.13039/501100002347: 01GX1049
The main study was funded by grant 01GX1049 from the German Ministry for Education and Research.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.).