Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:42:45.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of positive images of a person with intellectual disability on attitudes: randomised controlled trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Sabu John Varughese
Affiliation:
Community Drug and Alcohol Service, Thurrock
Vania Mendes
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London
Jason Luty*
Affiliation:
South Essex Partnership NHS Trust, Southend on Sea and Cambridge & Peterborough Mental Health NHS Trust, Cambridge
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and method

Tackling discrimination, stigma and inequalities in mental health is a major UK government objective yet people with intellectual disability (also known as learning disability in UK health services) continue to suffer serious stigma and discrimination. We examine the effect of viewing pictures of a person with intellectual disability on stigmatised attitudes. The 20-point Attitude to Mental Illness Questionnaire (AMIQ) was used to assess stigmatised attitudes. Members of the general public were randomised to complete the questionnaire having looked at a good (attractive) or bad (unattractive) photograph of a person with intellectual disability.

Results

Questionnaires were received from 187 participants (response rate 74%). The mean AMIQ stigma score for the bad photo group was 1.3 (s.e. = 0.3, median 1, interquartile range (IQR) = 0–3, n = 82). The mean AMIQ score for the good photo group was 2.8 (s.e. = 0.3, median 3, IQR = 1–5, n = 105). The difference in AMIQ stigma score was highly significant (two-sided P = 0.0001, median difference 2, Mann–Whitney U-test).

Clinical implications

Looking at a good (attractive) picture of a person with intellectual disability significantly reduces reported stigmatised attitudes, whereas a bad (unattractive) picture has no effect.

Type
Original Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2011

Tackling stigma and inequalities in health is a major UK government objective. 1,Reference Darzi2 Stigma is a social construction that devalues people because of a distinguishing characteristic or mark. Reference Biernat, Dovidio, Heatherton, Kleck and Hebl3 The World Health Organization (WHO) and World Psychiatric Association (WPA) recognise that the stigma attached to mental disorders is strongly associated with suffering, disability and poverty. Reference Corrigan, Markowitz, Watson, Rowan and Kubiak4 Stigma is also a major barrier to treatment-seeking behaviour. Reference Appleby5 Many studies show that negative attitudes towards the mentally ill are widespread. Reference Crisp, Gelder, Goddard and Meltzer6 Furthermore, the media generally depicts people who are mentally ill as violent, erratic and dangerous. Reference Granello, Pauley and Carmichael7 There have been several attempts to reduce the stigma of mental illness including the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists’ ‘Changing Minds’ campaign, 8 the current ‘See me’ campaign in Scotland (www.seemescotland.org.uk) and ‘Time to Change’ campaign in England (www.time-to-change.org.uk).

Society's neglect and ill treatment of people with intellectual disability (also known as learning disability in UK health services) is infamous. Reference Sperlinger, O'Hara and Sperlinger9,Reference O'Hara10 Various organisations report that people with intellectual disability encounter stigma, prejudice and suffer continued denial of their human rights. 11,12 However, very little research is published on the stigma of intellectual disability, although a recent paper describes a new instrument for measuring the stigma experienced by people with intellectual disability and describes the current situation. Reference Ali, Strydom, Hassiotis, Williams and King13 However, the proportion of research reports on intellectual disability was consistently less than any other diagnostic category in a survey of five high impact psychiatric journals. Reference Luty, Umoh, Sessay and Sarkhel14 In a Mencap survey of 5000 people with intellectual disability, over 80% had been bullied in the previous year, a third on a weekly basis, a half reported verbal abuse and a quarter reported physical assaults. 15 People with intellectual disability were twice as likely to be victims of crime. 16 Inequalities in healthcare were identified by an investigation conducted by the Disability Rights Commission in the UK and Mencap's Death by Indifference report. 11 The UK Government report, Valuing People, aims to counter these problems and improve the lives of people with intellectual disability by ensuring that services respect their rights, choices, independence and social inclusion, and ensuring their access to mainstream services. 17

There is a view that a disfigured or ‘dysmorphic’ facial appearance may further stigmatise people. Reference Houston and Bull18-Reference Kaney, Mason, Carlisle, Watkins and Whitehead20 By comparison, marketing strategies for commercial products invariably associate their product with positive images and avoid associating it with any negative images. Reference Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem and Nolen-Hoeksema21-Reference Lin and Yeh27 Hence our study looked at the effect of viewing pictures of people with intellectual disability and dysmorphic facial features on stigmatised attitudes.

Method

Participants

We recruited 250 participants from the UK general population using direct mail shots and advertisements in local newspapers as described in a previous study. Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher28 A total of 125 participants per group were approached with the aim of generating approximately 100 responses per group.

Instruments

The 5-item Attitude to Mental Illness Questionnaire (AMIQ) is a brief, self-completion questionnaire. Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher28,Reference Cunningham, Sobell and Chow29 Respondents read a short vignette describing an imaginary patient and answered five questions (Appendix). Individual questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (maximum +2, minimum −2) with blank questions, ‘neutral’ and ‘don't know’ scored zero. The total score for each vignette ranged between −10 and +10. The AMIQ has been shown to have good psychometric properties in a sample of over 800 members of the UK general public (one component accounted for 80.2% of the variance; test-retest reliability was 0.702 (Pearson's correlation coefficient); alternate test-reliability v. Corrigan's attribution questionnaire was 0.704 (Spearman's rank correlation Rho); Cronbach's alpha was 0.93). Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher28 Other research we have undertaken has shown a 2-unit difference between the stigma scores of pharmacists who were prepared to dispense methadone to people dependent on opiates and pharmacies who did not Reference Luty, Kumar and Stagias30 - the positive predictive value was 77% using a cut-off AMIQ score of 0. Hence the AMIQ scores are able to predict discrimination by people towards those with mental illness in a real-world situation.

Procedure

Participants were randomised using the randomisation function of the Stats Direct statistical package (version 2.4) for Windows. The ‘bad photo’ group were asked to look at a photograph of a man with intellectual disability from the cover of the Learning Disability Coalition leaflet entitled Tell it Like it is. 31 The photo shows the face of a man with dysmorphic features, a partial ptosis of one eye and a mild skin condition visible on his face and chin, wearing a casual outfit. Participants were then asked to complete the AMIQ stigma questionnaire with the following description: ‘Oliver has Down's syndrome. He is 32 years old and lives with his parents. He cannot read or write but he is happy and cheerful and keen to help people’ (Appendix). The ‘good photo’ group were asked to look at a photo of a man with intellectual disability who was smartly dressed in a shirt and tie apparently at work in an office (see August 2010 issue of The Psychiatrist). Participants were then asked to complete the AMIQ stigma questionnaire.

Data analysis

Randomisation, correlation coefficients and non-parametric (Mann-Whitney) tests were used to generate and compare differences in the two groups using the Stats Direct statistical software package (version 2.4) for Windows.

Results

Questionnaires were received from 187 participants (response rate 74%). Both groups were closely comparable on demographic data. For the bad photo group (n = 82), the mean age was 51 years (s.e. = 1.8), 46% were male and 59% in paid employment. For the good photo group (n = 105), the mean age was 54 years (s.e. = 1.5), 40% were male and 56% in paid employment. Over 90% of both groups described their ethnic group as White British.

The mean AMIQ stigma score for the bad photo group was 1.3 (s.e. = 0.3, median 1, interquartile range (IQR) = 0-3, n = 82). The mean AMIQ score for the good photo group was 2.8 (s.e. = 0.3, median 3, IQR = 1-5, n = 105). The difference in AMIQ stigma score was highly significant (two-sided P = 0.0001, median difference 2; Mann-Whitney U-test).

Discussion

This study shows that an attractive photograph of a person with intellectual disability significantly reduces stigmatised attitudes when compared with an unattractive photograph. Validation of the AMIQ shows that in practice the range of scores varied from −5 to +5. Furthermore, other research by our group has shown a 2-unit difference between the stigma scores of pharmacists who were prepared to dispense methadone to people dependent on opiates and pharmacies who did not. Reference Luty, Kumar and Stagias30 Hence the median difference (2 units) is likely to be worthwhile in practice.

In another study we found that a good (attractive) photo produced a mean AMIQ score of 2.43 (s.e. = 0.12, n = 174). Reference Varughese and Luty32 This is closely comparable with the good photo group in the current report (mean AMIQ score 2.8). A control group that had no photo attached produced an AMIQ score of 1.56 (s.e. = 0.21, n = 186). This is closely comparable to the bad photo result from the current report (mean AMIQ score 1.3). This suggests that a bad photo is better than no photo at all, whereas an attractive photo produces a highly significantly positive response.

Stigmatised attitudes are widely reported towards people as a result of disfigurement or dysmorphic facial appearance. Reference Houston and Bull18-Reference Kaney, Mason, Carlisle, Watkins and Whitehead20 By contrast, presenting individuals in a positive manner can significantly reduce the stigma of alcoholism, although the effect found for schizophrenia was negligible. Reference Luty, Rao, Arokiadass, Easow and Sarkhel33,Reference Corrigan and Penn34 Looking at an attractive picture of a man with Down syndrome actually reduced stigmatised attitudes and this is supported by most marketing strategies that invariably recommend associating a product with a successful, physically attractive individual rather than an unappealing image. Reference Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem and Nolen-Hoeksema21-Reference Lin and Yeh27

Methods to reduce the stigma of mental illness

The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ ‘Changing Minds’ campaign aimed to promote positive images of mental illness, challenge misrepresentations and discrimination and educate the public to the real nature and treatability of mental disorder. Reference Crisp, Gelder, Goddard and Meltzer6 Crisp et al's large survey showed that people with substance use disorders were the most stigmatised of all those with mental disorder. Reference Crisp, Gelder, Goddard and Meltzer6 More recently, national anti-stigma campaigns have been launched in Scotland (‘See me’) and England (‘Time to Change’), although unfortunately there have been reports that national anti-stigma campaigns are not particularly effective. Reference Luty, Umoh, Sessay and Sarkhel14,Reference Paykel, Hart and Priest35,Reference Mehta, Kassam, Leese, Butler and Thornicroft36 These reports discuss the disappointing results to date from the ‘Defeat Depression’, the ‘Changing Minds’ and the Scottish ‘See me’ campaign. Although a significant amount of work has been undertaken on the stigmatising effect of a diagnosis of schizophrenia, very little research has looked at the stigmatised attitudes directed against people with intellectual disability. Reference Corrigan, Markowitz, Watson, Rowan and Kubiak4,Reference O'Hara10,Reference Luty, Umoh, Sessay and Sarkhel14,Reference Penn, Kommana, Mansfield and Link37 For example, the stigma of intellectual disability is not addressed by either the ‘Changing Minds’ or ‘Time to Change’ campaigns or the UK government publication Action on Mental Health. 1 Methods of dealing with stigma are not addressed in the UK Department of Health report, Valuing People, which specifically concerns people with intellectual disability. 17

Action on Mental Health 1 provides 12 individual fact sheets to reduce stigma. This supplements the efforts of the ‘Changing Minds’ campaign. Both give practical advice to health agencies, employers and stakeholders to tackle stigma. Providing factual information in brief fact sheets Reference Penn, Guynan, Daily, Spaulding, Garbin and Sullivan38,Reference Thornton and Wahl39 or through extensive interventions such as educational courses has been reported to reduce stigma. Reference Corrigan and Penn34,Reference Mayville and Penn40-Reference Knox, Smith and Hereby42 Unfortunately, responses tend to be small, especially if negative consequences of mental illness are also disseminated. Knox et al showed that addressing stigmatised attitudes to mental illness among four million members of the US armed forces with mandatory training to recognise and treat mental illness significantly reduced suicide rates but not stigmatised attitudes. Reference Knox, Smith and Hereby42 Pinfold et al reported a project in which 472 English secondary school children attended mental health awareness workshops. Reference Pinfold, Toulmin, Thornicroft, Farmer, Huxley and Graham43 Overall, there was a small but positive shift in their understanding of mental illness. However, it was possible to argue that in both these settings participants engaged in anti-stigma training, whereas any involvement by the general public is entirely voluntary.

Penn et al reported a study of 163 US undergraduates who were assigned randomly to four groups: three watched a documentary about schizophrenia (represented realistically), polar bears or being overweight, and the fourth group was a ‘no video’ control group. Reference Penn, Chamberlin and Mueser44 The schizophrenia documentary did not change attitudes. Depicting the negative consequences of schizophrenia may be realistic but may not be the best way to reduce stigma. Depicting a success story may be more effective, although viewers may then classify this as an exception to the rule. Reference Corrigan and Penn34 By contrast another study showed that presenting individuals who had recovered from alcoholism in a positive manner can significantly reduce the stigma of alcoholism, however the effects for schizophrenia were negligible. Reference Luty, Rao, Arokiadass, Easow and Sarkhel33 Luty et al also found that a brief face-to-face intervention (motivational interviewing) helped to reduce the stigma of alcoholism, although the effect was modest. Reference Luty, Umoh and Nuamah45

Promoting direct interpersonal contact with people who are mentally ill may be an effective strategy, but the amount of contact required has not been established. Reference Corrigan and Penn34,Reference Penn, Guynan, Daily, Spaulding, Garbin and Sullivan38,Reference Pinfold, Toulmin, Thornicroft, Farmer, Huxley and Graham43,Reference Wolff, Pathare, Craig and Leff46 It would be difficult, in practice, to ensure that a significant proportion of the public had contact with people with a severe mental illness. Our report indicates that looking at pictures of people with intellectual disability and dysmorphic facial features reduces stigmatised attitudes significantly and this may act as an effective substitute for direct contact.

Strengths and limitations

The AMIQ was used in this project as it is convenient and has been well validated. Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher28,Reference Cunningham, Sobell and Chow29,Reference Luty, Rao, Arokiadass, Easow and Sarkhel33 Other instruments are available, although these tend to be much longer, involve interviews or tend to address the experience of stigma by people with mental illness (e.g. the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness scale Reference Ritsher, Otilingam and Grajales47).Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher28

Although there was an excess of female respondents, the age and employment status of participants were reasonably matched to that from UK census surveys. Hence the sample appears to be a reasonable cross-section of the British public. However, it is self-selecting and may not generalise across the whole population. Ideally, interviews could be conducted using a quota survey of households with repeat visits for non-responders. Reference Crisp, Gelder, Goddard and Meltzer6 Unfortunately this is prohibitively expensive.

The study presented a hypothetical person with intellectual disability, as, it was not possible to measure stigmatised behaviour towards real people with intellectual disability. Moreover, the written views and expressed attitudes may not translate into any enduring behavioural change. Although there was no direct contact between participants and researchers, participants are likely to make some assumptions about the potentially liberal beliefs of researchers. Hence social desirability bias may affect the results. However, the results from other similar studies demonstrated a negative view of people with active substance use disorder and suggest that participants had little reservation about indicating their disapproval of these disorders. Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher28,Reference Luty, Rao, Arokiadass, Easow and Sarkhel33 This is confirmed in other reports. Reference Crisp, Gelder, Goddard and Meltzer6 This would indicate that social disability bias had only a modest effect. Furthermore, social desirability bias would affect both groups equally.

Funding

The research was supported by Southend MIND.

Appendix

Attitude to Mental Illness Questionnaire (AMIQ)Reference Luty, Fakuda, Umoh and Gallagher 28, Reference Cunningham, Sobell and Chow 29

Participants were presented with either photo A (good photo) or photo B (bad photo).

This is a fictitious report. This is Oliver.

‘Oliver has Down's syndrome. He is 32 years old and lives with his parents. He cannot read or write but he is happy and cheerful and keen to help people’. Please underline the answer which best reflects your views:

Do you think that this would damage Oliver's career?

Strongly agree-2/Agree-1/Neutral0/Disagree+1/Strongly disagree+2/Don't know0

I would be comfortable if Oliver was my colleague at work?

Strongly agree+2 / Agree+1 / Neutral0 / Disagree-1 / Strongly disagree-2 / Don't know0

I would be comfortable about inviting Oliver to a dinner party?

Strongly agree+2 / Agree+1 / Neutral0 / Disagree-1 / Strongly disagree-2 / Don't know0

How likely do you think it would be for Oliver's wife to leave him?

Very likely-2 / Quite likely-1 / Neutral0 / Unlikely+1 / Very unlikely+2 / Don't know0

How likely do you think it would be for Oliver to get in trouble with the law?

Very likely-2 / Quite likely-1 / Neutral0 / Unlikely+1 / Very unlikely+2 / Don't know0

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

None.

References

1 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Action on Mental Health – A Guide to Promoting Social Inclusion. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004.Google Scholar
2 Darzi, A. Our NHS, Our Future. NHS Next Stage Review: Interim Report. Department of Health, 2007.Google Scholar
3 Biernat, M, Dovidio, JF. Stigma and stereotypes. In The Social Psychology of Stigma (eds Heatherton, TF, Kleck, RE, Hebl, MR): 88125. Guilford Press, 2000.Google Scholar
4 Corrigan, P, Markowitz, FE, Watson, A, Rowan, D, Kubiak, MA. An attribution model of public discrimination towards people with mental illness. J Health Soc Behav 2003; 44: 162–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Appleby, L. Safer Services. Department of Health, 1999.Google Scholar
6 Crisp, AH, Gelder, M, Goddard, E, Meltzer, H. Stigmatization of people with mental illness: a follow-up study within the Changing Minds campaign of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. World Psychiatry 2005; 4: 106–13.Google ScholarPubMed
7 Granello, D, Pauley, PS, Carmichael, A. Relationship of the media to attitudes towards people with mental illness. J Humanist Couns Educ Dev 1999; 38: 89110.Google Scholar
8 Royal College of Psychiatrists. Changing Minds: History of the Campaign. Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2009 (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/campaigns/changingminds/whatischangingminds/whychangingminds.aspx).Google Scholar
9 Sperlinger, A. Introduction. In Adults with Learning Disabilities: A Practical Approach for Health Professionals (eds O'Hara, J & Sperlinger, A): 139–53. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.Google Scholar
10 O'Hara, J. Learning disabilities and ethnicity: achieving cultural competence. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2003; 9: 166–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Mencap. Death by Indifference. Mencap, 2007.Google Scholar
12 European Union Monitoring and Advocacy Programme. Report on People with Intellectual Disabilities. Open Society Institute, 2004.Google Scholar
13 Ali, A, Strydom, A, Hassiotis, A, Williams, R, King, M. A measure of perceived stigma in people with intellectual disability. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 193: 410–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Luty, J, Umoh, O, Sessay, M, Sarkhel, A. Effectiveness of Changing Minds campaign factsheets in reducing stigmatised attitudes towards mental illness. Psychiatr Bull 2007; 31: 377–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Mencap. The Need to Combat Bullying of People with a Learning Disability. Mencap, 2000.Google Scholar
16 Mencap. Barriers to Justice. Mencap, 1997.Google Scholar
17 Department of Health. Valuing People: A New Strategy for People with Learning Disability for the 21st Century. Department of Health, 2001.Google Scholar
18 Houston, V, Bull, R. Do people avoid sitting next to someone who is facially disfigured? Eur J Soc Psychol 1994; 24: 279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Strauss, RP, Ramsey, BL, Edwards, TC, Topolski, TD, Kapp-Simon, KA, Thomas, CR, et al. Stigma experiences in youth with facial differences: a multi-site study of adolescents and their mothers. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007; 10: 96103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Kaney, S. Overcoming the stigma of disfigurement. In Stigma and Social Exclusion in Healthcare (eds Mason, T, Carlisle, C, Watkins, C & Whitehead, E): 142. Routledge, 2001.Google Scholar
21 Atkinson, RL, Atkinson, RC, Smith, EE, Bem, DJ, Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology (12th edn). Harcourt Brace, 1996.Google Scholar
22 McGrouther, DA. Facial disfigurement. The last bastion of discrimination. BMJ 1997; 314: 991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Till, BD, Busler, M. Matching products with endorsers: attractiveness versus expertise. J Consum Mark 1998; 15: 576–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Wilmshurst, J, Mackay, A. The Fundamentals and Practice of Marketing (4th edn). Butterworth, 2002.Google Scholar
25 Kahle, LR, Kim, C. Creating Images and the Psychology of Marketing Communication: 163. Psychology Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Patzer, GL. The Power and Paradox of Physical Attractiveness. Universal Publishers, 2007.Google Scholar
27 Lin, CL, Yeh, JT. Comparing society's awareness of women: media-portrayed idealized images and physical attractiveness. J Bus Ethics 2009; 90: 6179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Luty, J, Fakuda, D, Umoh, O, Gallagher, J. Validation of a short instrument to measure stigmatised attitudes towards mental illness. Psychiatr Bull 2006; 30: 257–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Cunningham, JA, Sobell, LC, Chow, VMC. What's in a label? The effects of substance types and labels on treatment considerations and stigma. J Stud Alcohol 1993; 54: 693–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Luty, JS, Kumar, P, Stagias, K. Stigmatised attitudes in independent pharmacies associated with discrimination towards individuals with opioid dependence. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 511–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Learning Disability Coalition. Tell it Like it is. Learning Disability Coalition, 2009 (http://www.learningdisabilitycoalition.org.uk/download/Tell_it_like_it_is.pdf).Google Scholar
32 Varughese, SJ, Luty, J. Stigmatised attitudes towards intellectual disability: a randomised crossover trial. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 318–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Luty, J, Rao, H, Arokiadass, SMR, Easow, JM, Sarkhel, A. The repentant sinner: methods to reduce stigmatised attitudes towards mental illness. Psychiatr Bull 2008; 32: 327–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Corrigan, PW, Penn, DL. Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma. Am Psychol 1999; 54: 765–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35 Paykel, ES, Hart, D, Priest, RG. Changes in public attitudes to depression during the Defeat Depression Campaign. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 173: 519–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36 Mehta, N, Kassam, A, Leese, M, Butler, G, Thornicroft, G. Public attitudes towards people with mental illness in England and Scotland, 1994–2003. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 194: 278–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37 Penn, DL, Kommana, S, Mansfield, M, Link, BG. Dispelling the stigma of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1999; 25: 437–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38 Penn, DL, Guynan, K, Daily, T, Spaulding, WD, Garbin, P, Sullivan, M. Dispelling the stigma of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1994; 20: 567–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39 Thornton, JA, Wahl, OF. Impact of newspaper articles on attitudes towards mental illness. J Community Psychol 1996; 24: 1723.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Mayville, E, Penn, DL. Changing societal attitudes towards persons with severe mental illness. Cogn Behav Pract 1998; 5: 241–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Penn, DL, Martin, J. The stigma of severe mental illness. Some potential solutions for a recalcitrant problem. Psychiatr Q 1998; 69: 235–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42 Knox, T, Smith, J, Hereby, H. Risk of suicide and related adverse outcomes after exposure to a suicide prevention programme in the US air force: cohort study. BMJ 2003; 327; 1376–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43 Pinfold, V, Toulmin, H, Thornicroft, G, Farmer, P, Huxley, P, Graham, T. Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination: evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 182: 342–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44 Penn, DL, Chamberlin, C, Mueser, KT. The effects of a documentary film about schizophrenia on psychiatric stigma. Schizophr Bull 2003; 29: 383–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45 Luty, J, Umoh, O, Nuamah, F. Effect of brief motivational interviewing on stigmatised attitudes towards mental illness. Psychiatr Bull 2009; 33: 212–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Wolff, G, Pathare, S, Craig, T, Leff, J. Public education for community care. A new approach. Br J Psychiatry 1996; 168: 441–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47 Ritsher, JB, Otilingam, PG, Grajales, M. Internalized stigma of mental illness: psychometric properties of a new measure. Psychiatry Res 2003; 121: 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.