Prosumers' experiences of stigma dimensions within the clinical psychology field.

Lived experiences of mental illness and stigmatizing attitudes toward psychiatric diagnoses are common throughout the world. Research demonstrates that clinical psychologists are not exempt from having lived experiences of mental illness, nor experiencing, witnessing and perpetuating stigma. However, no research has examined prosumers' (providers and consumers of mental health services) experiences of witnessing discrimination within the field of clinical psychology. The purpose of this study was to explore prosumer's experiences of stigma within clinical psychology. A total of 175 doctoral level prosumers (graduated N = 39 and N = 136 in-training) completed a mixed-method online survey regarding their stigma experiences within the field. Emergent qualitative themes from grounded theory analyses included: witnessed discrimination (invalidation, over pathologizing, clinical psychologists as experts and training as a breeding ground for stigma, psychological distress, negative feelings related to field), anticipated stigma (agency and identity rejected, degree of acceptance), internalized stigma (perceived competence and social desirability), and stigma resistance (academia in action, engaging communities, comes with a risk, worthwhile). Our findings have implications for the role of clinical psychology in perpetuating stigmatizing views and attitudes toward individuals with lived experiences of mental illness, specifically in-training and academic settings. Further research should strive to evaluate how clinical psychologists, including prosumers, engage in stigma, and the associations between discrimination and other stigma dimensions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Policy Definitions for "Serious Mental Illness" Across 56 United States, Districts and Territories.

The construct "serious/severe mental illness," or "SMI," is a priority within mental health initiatives in the United States. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding its operational definition in policy and practice settings. This study involved an evaluation of "SMI" policy definitions across the 50 United States, five territories, and Washington, D.C. via review of public legislation, department of health (DOH) websites and contacts. Policy definitions were available for 46 (82.2%) locations. Of those definitions, 32 (69.6%) were listed within legislation and 18 (39.1%) used pre-existing organizational or agency definitions. Only nine (19.6%) definitions indicated they were intended to determine eligibility for specific mental health services. Most locations (N = 38; 82.6%) mentioned functional impairment or disability as an eligibility criterion and suggested any psychiatric diagnosis could be considered SMI (N = 34; 73.9%). Results indicate substantial variability in SMI policy definitions across geographic locations with implications for service eligibility, delivery, and receipt.