Marco Colizzi1,2, Mirella Ruggeri1, Antonio Lasalvia1. 1. Section of Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, 37134Verona, Italy. 2. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, LondonSE5 8AF, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have provided initial evidence that people at risk for psychosis (PR) suffer from stigma and discrimination related to their condition. However, no study has systematically reviewed stigma and discrimination associated with being at PR and the potential underlying mechanisms. METHODS: This work aimed to systematically review all studies addressing stigma and discrimination in PR people in order to assess: (1) the occurrence of this phenomenon and its different components (public, internalized, perceived, and labeling-related), (2) whether stigma affects outcomes of the PR state, and (3) whether other factors modulate stigma among PR individuals. RESULTS: The reviewed studies (n = 38) widely differ in their design, methodological quality, and populations under investigation, thus limiting direct comparison of findings. However, converging evidence suggests that the general public endorses stigmatizing attitudes towards PR individuals, and that this is more frequent in people with a low educational level or with no direct experience of the PR state. PR individuals experience more internalized stigma and perceive more discrimination than healthy subjects or patients with non-psychotic disorders. Further, PR labeling is equally associated with both positive (e.g. validation and relief) and negative effects (e.g. status loss and discrimination). Moreover, stigma increases the likelihood of poor outcome, transition to full-psychosis, disengagement from services, and family stigma among PR individuals. Finally, very limited evidence awaiting replication supports the efficacy of cognitive therapies in mitigating the negative effects of stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence confirms previous concerns about stigma and its negative consequences for PR individuals, thus having important public health implications.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have provided initial evidence that people at risk for psychosis (PR) suffer from stigma and discrimination related to their condition. However, no study has systematically reviewed stigma and discrimination associated with being at PR and the potential underlying mechanisms. METHODS: This work aimed to systematically review all studies addressing stigma and discrimination in PR people in order to assess: (1) the occurrence of this phenomenon and its different components (public, internalized, perceived, and labeling-related), (2) whether stigma affects outcomes of the PR state, and (3) whether other factors modulate stigma among PR individuals. RESULTS: The reviewed studies (n = 38) widely differ in their design, methodological quality, and populations under investigation, thus limiting direct comparison of findings. However, converging evidence suggests that the general public endorses stigmatizing attitudes towards PR individuals, and that this is more frequent in people with a low educational level or with no direct experience of the PR state. PR individuals experience more internalized stigma and perceive more discrimination than healthy subjects or patients with non-psychotic disorders. Further, PR labeling is equally associated with both positive (e.g. validation and relief) and negative effects (e.g. status loss and discrimination). Moreover, stigma increases the likelihood of poor outcome, transition to full-psychosis, disengagement from services, and family stigma among PR individuals. Finally, very limited evidence awaiting replication supports the efficacy of cognitive therapies in mitigating the negative effects of stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence confirms previous concerns about stigma and its negative consequences for PR individuals, thus having important public health implications.
Authors: Joseph S DeLuca; Derek M Novacek; Laura H Adery; Shaynna N Herrera; Yulia Landa; Cheryl M Corcoran; Elaine F Walker Journal: Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health Date: 2022-03-23
Authors: Joseph S DeLuca; Lawrence H Yang; Alicia A Lucksted; Philip T Yanos; Jordan DeVylder; Deidre M Anglin; Yulia Landa; Cheryl M Corcoran Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 7.348
Authors: Joseph S DeLuca; LeeAnn Akouri-Shan; Samantha Y Jay; Samantha L Redman; Emily Petti; Alicia Lucksted; Pamela Rakhshan Rouhakhtar; Mallory J Klaunig; Sarah M Edwards; Gloria M Reeves; Jason Schiffman Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2021-08
Authors: Kristen A Woodberry; Kate S Powers; Caitlin Bryant; Donna Downing; Mary B Verdi; Katherine M Elacqua; Audrey R L Reuman; Leda Kennedy; Daniel I Shapiro; Michelle L West; Debbie Huang; Francesca M Crump; Margaux M Grivel; Drew Blasco; Shaynna N Herrera; Cheryl M Corcoran; Larry J Seidman; Bruce G Link; William R McFarlane; Lawrence H Yang Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 4.662
Authors: Jorge J Varela; Cristóbal Hernández; Rafael Miranda; Christopher P Barlett; Matías E Rodríguez-Rivas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Cansu Sarac; Joseph S DeLuca; Zarina R Bilgrami; Shaynna N Herrera; Jonathan J Myers; Matthew F Dobbs; Shalaila S Haas; Therese L Todd; Agrima Srivastava; Rachel Jespersen; Riaz B Shaik; Yulia Landa; Larry Davidson; Anthony J Pavlo; Cheryl M Corcoran Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2021-06-17