Robert D Ashford1, Austin M Brown2, Jessica McDaniel2, Brenda Curtis3. 1. a Substance Use Disorders Institute , University of the Sciences , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA. 2. b Center for Young Adult Addiction and Recovery , Kennesaw State University , Kennesaw , Georgia , USA. 3. c Treatment Research Center , Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Labels such as "addict" and "substance abuser" have been found to elicit implicit and explicit stigma among the general public previously. The difference in the levels of this bias among individuals in recovery and those employed in the health profession has not yet been identified, however. The current study seeks to answer this question using measures of implicit bias. METHODS: A subset sample (n = 299) from a previously completed study (n = 1288) was selected for analysis. Mixed-model ANOVA tests were completed to identify variance between d-prime automatic association scores with the terms "addict" and "substance abuser" among individuals in recovery and those identified as working in the health professions. RESULTS: Individuals in recovery did not have lower negative associations with either term, whereas individuals employed as health professionals had greater negative associations with the term "substance abuser" but did not have greater negative associations with the term "addict." CONCLUSIONS: Results provide further evidence that previously identified stigmatizing labels have the potential to influence medical care and medical practitioner perceptions of individuals with substance use disorders and should be avoided. Further exploration into the role negative associations derived from commonly used labels have in the individual recovery process is needed to draw appropriate recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Labels such as "addict" and "substance abuser" have been found to elicit implicit and explicit stigma among the general public previously. The difference in the levels of this bias among individuals in recovery and those employed in the health profession has not yet been identified, however. The current study seeks to answer this question using measures of implicit bias. METHODS: A subset sample (n = 299) from a previously completed study (n = 1288) was selected for analysis. Mixed-model ANOVA tests were completed to identify variance between d-prime automatic association scores with the terms "addict" and "substance abuser" among individuals in recovery and those identified as working in the health professions. RESULTS: Individuals in recovery did not have lower negative associations with either term, whereas individuals employed as health professionals had greater negative associations with the term "substance abuser" but did not have greater negative associations with the term "addict." CONCLUSIONS: Results provide further evidence that previously identified stigmatizing labels have the potential to influence medical care and medical practitioner perceptions of individuals with substance use disorders and should be avoided. Further exploration into the role negative associations derived from commonly used labels have in the individual recovery process is needed to draw appropriate recommendations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Addiction; bias; discrimination; health professionals; language; linguistics; recovery; stigma; substance use disorder
Authors: Jason B Luoma; Magdalena Kulesza; Steven C Hayes; Barbara Kohlenberg; Mary Larimer Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: S Clement; O Schauman; T Graham; F Maggioni; S Evans-Lacko; N Bezborodovs; C Morgan; N Rüsch; J S L Brown; G Thornicroft Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Anna P Goddu; Katie J O'Conor; Sophie Lanzkron; Mustapha O Saheed; Somnath Saha; Monica E Peek; Carlton Haywood; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: John F Kelly; Brandon Bergman; Bettina B Hoeppner; Corrie Vilsaint; William L White Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Valerie A Earnshaw; Ryan J Watson; Lisa A Eaton; Natalie M Brousseau; Jean-Philippe Laurenceau; Annie B Fox Journal: Nat Rev Psychol Date: 2022-03-07
Authors: Kelsey C Priest; Travis I Lovejoy; Honora Englander; Sarah Shull; Dennis McCarty Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth C Saunders; Sarah K Moore; Olivia Walsh; Stephen A Metcalf; Alan J Budney; Patricia Cavazos-Rehg; Emily Scherer; Lisa A Marsch Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-01-27