Lifestyle causal beliefs are associated with higher personal and perceived stigma regarding depressive disorders: results from a representative population survey.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent and severe disorder associated with considerable stigma. This stigma contributes to the suffering and impedes help seeking behaviour of those affected. Stigma can be influenced by causal beliefs about depression and personal contact with people suffering from depression. The aim of this study was to investigate (1) the associations between beliefs about the aetiology of depression and personal / perceived stigma, as well as (2) a possible moderating effect of personal contact with people with depression on these associations. METHODS: Stigma, causal beliefs, and contact with depression were assessed in a representative online survey among German adults (N = 5,000). Multiple regression analyses were performed with contact levels (unaffected vs. personally affected (diagnosed) vs. personally affected (undiagnosed) vs. affected by relatives with depression vs. persons who treat depression) and causal beliefs (biogenetic vs. psychosocial vs. lifestyle) as predictor variables for personal and perceived stigma as dependent variables. RESULTS: Higher personal stigma was associated with lifestyle causal beliefs (p < .001, f² = 0.07), lower personal stigma with biogenetic (p = .006, f² = 0.01) and psychosocial (p < .001, f² = 0.02) causal beliefs. A positive interaction between psychosocial beliefs and the contact group "relatives" (p = .039) further suggests that this contact group does not benefit so strongly from psychosocial causal beliefs regarding personal stigma. Higher perceived stigma was associated with psychosocial (p < .001, f² = 0.01) and lifestyle (p < .011, f² = 0.01) causal beliefs. Regarding contact levels, the "unaffected" had significantly higher personal stigma scores than each of the other contact groups (p < .001). The contact group "affected (diagnosed)" had significantly higher perceived stigma scores than "unaffected". CONCLUSIONS: The available data show that anti-stigma campaigns should clearly communicate, that depression is not caused by an unfavorable lifestyle. In general, psychosocial or biological explanatory models should be explained. Especially for the target group "relatives of depressive patients", who can be an important support for patients, education about biogenetic explanatory models should be provided. However, it is important to note that causal beliefs are only one of many factors that impact on stigma.

Lockdown Measures Against the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Negative Effects for People Living With Depression.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures to restrict the spread of the virus correlated with limitations in healthcare and changes in depression-related lifestyle elements (loss of daily structure, lack of exercise, and extended bed and sleep time) for depressed patients, both of which are known to negatively affect the course of depression. This paper examines, (i) the reporting of a worsening state of illness as a result of COVID-19-related measures among individuals with depressive disorders; and (ii) whether this worsening was related to restrictions in healthcare for depression or changes in depression-related lifestyle. The analysis was based on a population-representative survey of the German population aged 18-69 years (N = 5,135 respondents, comprising a subgroup of n = 1,038 persons suffering from depression and n = 598 persons who spent the lockdown primarily in home isolation). The key findings were: 49% (n = 505) of respondents with self-reported diagnosed depression reported that the measures against the pandemic had a negative impact on their depressive illness (new depressive episode, worsening of symptoms, suicidal impulses, suicide attempt, and other negative consequences). Of those who reported impaired access to healthcare for their depressive illness, 70% (n = 276) also reported a worsening of their depressive illness. This was a significantly higher percentage than those who did not experience impaired access to healthcare (36%, n = 229, p < 0.001). Of those who reported changes in depression-related lifestyle (loss of daily structure, lack of exercise, or extended bed and sleep time), 58% (n = 308) reported a worsening of their depressive illness. This was a significantly higher percentage than those who did not exhibit any of the outlined behaviours (28%, n = 19, p < 0.001). Worsening of the depressive illness was most common among those who reported a lack of daily structure or extended bedtimes (67%; n = 230 resp. N = 226). People who mentioned a lack of exercise also reported a worsening of their depressive illness (59%; n = 271). These findings reinforce the need to consider the suffering and possible increased suicide risk to people suffering from depression induced by measures designed to constrain the COVID-19 pandemic; an important consideration in identifying the optimal risk-benefit ratio when setting pandemic measures. Our study highlighted the importance of maintaining healthcare, even in crisis situations, and ensuring access to guideline-based treatment for people who need urgent care. It also showed that political interventions can influence individual behaviours that can have negative effects on depressive illness.