Stigma- and non-stigma-related treatment barriers to mental healthcare reported by service users and caregivers.

Delayed treatment seeking for people experiencing symptoms of mental illness is common despite available mental healthcare. Poor outcomes are associated with untreated mental illness and caregivers may eventually need to seek help on the service user's behalf. More attention has recently focused on the role of stigma in delayed treatment seeking. This study aimed to establish the frequency of stigma- and non-stigma-related treatment barriers reported by 202 service users and 80 caregivers; to compare treatment barriers reported by service users and caregivers; and to investigate demographic predictors of reporting stigma-related treatment barriers. The profile of treatment barriers differed between service users and caregivers. Service users were more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers than caregivers across all stigma-related items. Service users who were female, had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or with GCSEs (UK qualifications usually obtained at age 16) were significantly more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers. Caregivers who were female or of Black ethnicities were significantly more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers. Multifaceted approaches are needed to reduce barriers to treatment seeking for both service users and caregivers, with anti-stigma interventions being of particular importance for the former group.

Discrimination attributed to mental illness or race-ethnicity by users of community psychiatric services.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed participants' experienced discrimination and their causal attributions, particularly to mental illness or race-ethnicity. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 202 service users with severe mental illnesses were interviewed to assess their reported experiences of discrimination. The Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale assessed major experiences of discrimination and their recency and frequency across 12 life domains and perceived reasons (attributions). The Everyday Experiences of Discrimination Scale assessed ten types of everyday discrimination and attributions for these experiences. RESULTS: Most participants (88%) reported discrimination in at least one life domain, and 94% reported ever experiencing everyday discrimination. The most common areas of major discrimination were mental health care (44%), neighbors (42%), police (33%), employment (31%), and general medical care (31%). The most common attributions for major discrimination were mental illness (57%), race-ethnicity (24%), education or income (20%), or appearance (19%). Almost half (47%) attributed experiences of major discrimination to two or more causes. No differences were found between racial-ethnic groups in overall experienced discrimination or in main attributions to mental illness. However, compared with the mixed and white groups, participants in the black group were most likely to endorse race-ethnicity as a main attribution (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mental illness-related discrimination was found to be a common issue across racial-ethnic groups, and discrimination based on race-ethnicity was prevalent for the mixed and black groups. There is a need for antidiscrimination strategies that combine efforts to reduce the experience of discrimination attributed to mental illness and to race-ethnicity for racial-ethnic minority groups.

Anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illness has been linked to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. Additionally, anticipation of discrimination may lead some individuals to avoid participation in particular life areas, leading to greater isolation and social marginalisation. This study aimed to establish the levels and clinical and socio-demographic associations of anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst those diagnosed with a schizophrenia and comparator severe mental illnesses (bipolar and major depressive disorders). METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of anticipated and experienced discrimination from 202 individuals in South London (47% with schizophrenia, 32% with depression and 20% with bipolar disorder). RESULTS: 93% of the sample anticipated discrimination and 87% of participants had experienced discrimination in at least one area of life in the previous year. There was a significant association between the anticipation and the experience of discrimination. Higher levels of experienced discrimination were reported by those of a mixed ethnicity, and those with higher levels of education. Women anticipated more discrimination than men. Neither diagnosis nor levels of functioning were associated with the extent of discrimination. Clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression and suspiciousness were associated with more experienced and anticipated discrimination respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illnesses remains unacceptably common. Population level interventions are needed to reduce levels of discrimination and to safeguard individuals. Interventions are also required to assist those with severe mental illness to reduce internalised stigma and social avoidance.

Decision aid on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: feasibility and outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many mental health service users delay or avoid disclosing their condition to employers because of experience, or anticipation, of discrimination. However, non-disclosure precludes the ability to request 'reasonable adjustments'. There have been no intervention studies to support decision-making about disclosure to an employer. AIMS: To determine whether the decision aid has an effect that is sustained beyond its immediate impact; to determine whether a large-scale trial is feasible; and to optimise the designs of a larger trial and of the decision aid. METHOD: In this exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) in London, participants were randomly assigned to use of a decision aid plus usual care or usual care alone. Follow-up was at 3 months. Primary outcomes were: (a) stage of decision-making; (b) decisional conflict; and (c) employment-related outcomes (trial registration number: NCT01379014). RESULTS: We recruited 80 participants and interventions were completed for 36 out of 40 in the intervention group; in total 71 participants were followed up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that reduction in decisional conflict was significantly greater in the intervention group than among controls (mean improvement -22.7 (s.d. = 15.2) v. -11.2 (s.d. = 18.1), P = 0.005). More of the intervention group than controls were in full-time employment at follow-up (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The observed reduction in decisional conflict regarding disclosure has a number of potential benefits which next need to be tested in a definitive trial.