[Discrimination perceived by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenic disorders. INternational study of DIscrimination and stiGma Outcomes (INDIGO): French results]. / La discrimination vécue par les personnes ayant reçu un diagnostic de troubles schizophréniques. Premiers résultats français de l'étude INDIGO.

INTRODUCTION: The INDIGO study (INternational study of DIscrimination and stiGma Outcomes) aims at assessing the impact of schizophrenic disorders diagnosis on privacy, social and professional life, in terms of discrimination. In the general population, and even among health and social professionals, erroneous negative stereotypes (double personality, dangerosity) lead to high social distance. And this has an impact on various parts of daily life: employment, housing, compliance, self-esteem… About a tenth of the adult population suffers from mental disorders at any one time. These disorders now account for about 12% of the global impact of disability, and this will rise to 15% by the year 2020. People living with schizophrenia, for example, experience reduced social participation, whilst public images of mental illness and social reactions add a dimension of suffering, which has been described as a "second illness". Stigmatizing attitudes and discriminatory behavior among the general population against people with severe mental illness are common in all countries. Globally, little is known of effective interventions against stigma. It is clear that the negative effects of stigma can act as formidable barriers to active recovery. METHODOLOGY: The INDIGO study intends to establish detailed international data on how stigma and discrimination affect the lives of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The first aim of the INDIGO study is to conduct qualitative and quantitative interviews with 25 people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in each participating site, to elicit information on how the condition affects their everyday lives, with a focus upon sites in Europe. The second is to gather data for all participating countries on the laws, policies and regulations which set a clear distinction between people with a diagnosis of mental illness and others, to establish an international profile of such discrimination. A new scale (Discrimination and Stigma Scale [DISC]), used in a face-to-face setting was developed. Interviewers asked service users to comment on how far their mental disorder has affected key areas of their lives, including work, marriage and partnerships, housing, leisure, and religious activities. For country-level information, staff at each national site gathered the best available data on whether special legal, policy or administrative arrangements are made for people with a diagnosis of mental illness. These items included, for example, information on access to insurance, financial services, driving licenses, voting, jury service, or travel visas. The INDIGO study is conducted within the framework of the WPA global program to fight stigma and discrimination because of schizophrenia. French interviews occurred in two sites (Lille and Nice) on a sample of 25 patients. RESULTS: First, expressed disadvantages are high for several items (all relations, work and training, housing). In addition, we wish to highlight three specific points: almost half of the participants (46%) suffer from not being respected because of contacts with services, 88% of them felt rejected by people who know their diagnosis, and 76% hide/conceal their diagnosis. Positive experienced discrimination was rare. Two thirds of participants anticipated discrimination for job seeking and close personal relationships, sometimes with no experienced discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: This study, one of the rare in France adopting the point of view of a stigmatized group, revealed the numerous impacts of a diagnosis of schizophrenic disorders on everyday life. Comparisons between French and international results confirmed that the situation is not different in France, and even highlighted the extent of the stigmatization in the country.

[Representations of insanity, mental illness and depression in general population in France]. / Représentations sociales du "fou", du "malade mental" et du "dépressif" en population générale en France.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the representations of insane, mentally ill and depressive persons, in a representative sample from the French General Population. METHODS: Data were derived from the multicentric survey "Mental Health in the General Population: images and realities", carried out in 47 French public sites between 1999 and 2003. A face-to-face questionnaire was used to interview a representative sample of French metropolitan subjects, aged 18 and over, non-institutionalized and homeless. These subjects were recruited using quota sampling for age, sex, socioprofessional and education levels, according to data from the 1999 national French population census. Representations of insane, mentally ill and depressive persons were explored by a specific questionnaire with open and semi-open questions. Psychiatric diagnoses were identified using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). A national database was then constituted by pooling data from all sites, weighted for age, sex, level of education, socioprofessional level and work status to be representative of the French general population. RESULTS: Of the 36,000 individuals included in this study, over 75% associated the words "insane" and "mentally ill" with violent and dangerous behaviours and the term "depressive" with sadness, isolation and suicide. Young people, those with higher education and higher income level more frequently associated dangerous behaviours with mental illness rather than with insanity. The study shows that the general population draws a clear line between the representation of insane and mentally ill on one hand, and depressive on the other hand. Insane and mentally people are described as abnormal, irresponsible, unconscious, socially excluded, far from being curable, and to be cured against their will by psychotropic drugs and psychiatric hospitalisation. Whereas the depressive is perceived as a more familiar character, suffering, curable, who can be cured with psychotropic drugs and social support, but not to be hospitalized. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the overwhelming representations of insanity and mental illness in the French general population. As those stereotypes strongly affect access to care and behaviours toward psychiatric patients, the results show the need to think over the best way to fight against stigma and discrimination, in order to reduce psychiatric patients' social exclusion.

[Dangerous states and mental health disorders: perceptions and reality]. / Etats dangereux et troubles psychiques : images et réalités.

Image of Madness was always strongly linked with the notion of "dangerousness", provoking fear and social exclusion, despite the evolution of psychiatric practices and organisation, and the emphasis on user's rights respect. Mediatization and politicization of this issue through news item combining crime and mental illness, reinforce and spread out this perception. This paper presents a review of the litterature on social perceptions associating "dangerousness", "Insanity" and "mental illness", available data about the link between "dangerous states" and "psychiatric disorders", as well as the notion of "dangerousness" and the assessment of "dangerous state" of people suffering or not from psychiatric disorders. MAPPING OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS: The French Survey "Mental Health in General Population: Images and Realities (MHGP)" was carried out between 1999 and 2003, on a representative sample of 36.000 individuals over 18 years old. It aims at describing the social representations of the population about "insanity/insane" and "mental illness/mentally ill". The results show that about 75% of the people interviewed link "insanity" or "mental illness" with "criminal or violent acts". Young people and those with a high level of education more frequently categorize violent and dangerous behaviours in the field of Mental illness rather than in that of madness. CORRELATION BETWEEN DANGEROUS STATE AND PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS: in the scientific literature, all experts reject the hypothesis of a direct link between violence and mental disorder. Besides, 2 tendencies appear in their conclusions: on one hand, some studies establish a significative link between violence and severe mental illness, compared with the general population. On the other hand, results show that 87 to 97% of des aggressors are not mentally ills. Therefore, the absence of scientific consensus feeds the confusion and reinforce the link of causality between psychiatric disorders and violence. OFFICIAL FIGURES BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE: according to the French Ministry of Justice, there is a lack of significative data in general population, that would allow the accurate evaluation of the proportion of authors of crimes and offences presenting a "dangerous state", either of criminological order or related to a psychiatric disorder. FROM "DANGEROUSNESS" TO "DANGEROUS STATE": the vagueness of the notion of "dangerousness" aggravates the confusion and reinforce the negative social representations attached to subjects labelled as "mentally ills". A way to alleviate this stigmatisation would be to stop using the word "dangerous", and rather use those of "dangerous states". Assessment of dangerous states is complex and needs to take into account several heterogeneous factors (circumstances of acting, social and family environment...). Besides, it is not a linear process for a given individual. Those risk factors of "dangerous state" lead to the construction of evaluation or prediction scales, which limits lay in the biaises of over or under predictive value. The overestimation of dangerousness is harmful, not only to individuals wrongly considered as "dangerous", but also to the society which, driven by safety concerns, agrees on the implementation of inaccurate measures. A FEW TRACKS FOR REMEDIATION: the representations linking "mental illness" and "dangerousness" are the major vectors of stigma, and deeply anchored in the collective popular imagination. They are shared by all population categories, with no distinction of age, gender, professional status or level of education. To overcome those prejudices, one has to carefully study their basis, their criteria, document them with statistical data, look for consistency and scientific rigour, in the terminology as well as in the methodology. Moreover, one has to encourage exchanges about this topic, between users, relatives, carers, local elected, politicians, media and health professional.