Differences in how women and men in a Swedish population-based sample think about sick leave: A cross-sectional vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in attitudes towards depression gives reason to believe that sociocultural gender norms play a role in other areas. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to test (i) if the likelihood to think that sick leave with depression symptoms is not reasonable varies between women and men, and (ii) if the likelihood to think sick leave is not reasonable varies depending on the gender of the individual with depression symptoms. METHODS: A study population of 3147 participants responded to a web-survey with a written case briefly describing a man or woman with symptoms of depression. Respondents were asked if they thought it is reasonable that the person was sick listed for two weeks. Logistic regression was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: After controlling for age, education, self-rated health, and respondent's own experience of sickness absence the adjusted OR was 1.45 (95% CI 1.25-1.67) for men being less likely to think sick-leave was reasonable. Gender difference decreased when adjusting for negative attitudes towards depression (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.44). No difference was found between how women and men thought about sick leave in relation to the gender of the case described in the vignette. CONCLUSION: Men were more likely to think that sick leave was not reasonable with decreased OR after adjustment for negative attitudes towards depression. Gender norms might be part of the explanation for differences but are challenging to test. This study contributes to a bourgeoning research field on gendered attitudes and sick leave, in terms of theoretical reasoning and methodological choice.

Association of stigmatizing attitudes with people's opinion of depression as a valid reason for sickness absence: A Swedish vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common cause of sickness absence (SA) and also highly associated with stigma. Few studies have addressed the role of stigma in relation to SA. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if attitudes to depression were associated with the public's opinion of depression as a valid reason of SA. METHODS: The study population (n = 2413) originated from a web-based panel of citizens. The survey included a short vignette describing a person with symptoms of depression and the person's work tasks, followed by a question on recommendation of SA. Negative attitudes were measured by the Depression Stigma Scale. Logistic regressions were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) for the likelihood of not recommending SA, controlling for individual and work-related co-variates. RESULTS: The crude association between negative attitudes and not recommending SA was OR 2.15 (95% CI, 1.76-2.62). In the fully adjusted model the OR was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.40 -2.21) for not recommending SA. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with negative attitudes to depression were more likely to not consider depression as a valid reason of sickness absence. The study supports theories on layered stigma; attitudes from one arena are related to other arenas. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Political Ideology and Stigmatizing Attitudes Toward Depression: The Swedish Case.

BACKGROUND: Stigmatizing attitudes toward persons with mental disorders is a well-established and global phenomenon often leading to discrimination and social exclusion. Although previous research in the United States showed that conservative ideology has been related to stigmatizing attitudes toward mental disorders, there is reason to believe that this mechanism plays a different role in the context of a universal welfare state with a multi-party system such as Sweden. Furthermore, "mental disorders" may signify severe psychotic disorders, which may evoke more negative attitudes. This suggests the importance of specific studies focusing on the more common phenomenon of depression. This paper investigates the relationship between political ideology and stigmatizing attitudes toward depression in Sweden. METHODS: This study is part of the New Ways research program. Data were collected by the Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) at the University of Gothenburg in 2014 (N = 3246). Independent variables were political ideology and party affiliation. The dependent variable was the Depression Stigma Scale (DSS). Data were analyzed with linear regression analyses and analyses of variance. RESULTS: More conservative ideology (B = 0.68, standard error [SE] = 0.04, P<.001) and more conservative party affiliation (F(8 2920) = 38.45, P<.001) showed more stigmatizing attitudes toward depression. Item-level analyses revealed a difference where the supporters of the conservative party differed (P<.05) from supporters of the liberal party, with a higher proportion agreeing that "people could snap out of " depression if they wanted to; the populist right-wing party differed from the conservative party with a higher proportion agreeing on items displaying people with depression as "dangerous" and "unpredictable." Even self-stigma was highest among the populist right-wing party with 22.3% agreeing that "if I had depression I wouldn't tell…." CONCLUSION: Political ideology was associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward depression in Sweden. The results also confirm the need to distinguish between different forms of conservatism by observing social distance as being a more important driver among voters for the populist right-wing party compared with personal agency and responsibility among voters for the more traditional conservative party.