Amy J Morgan1, Judith Wright2, Nicola J Reavley2. 1. Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. ajmorgan@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australian national mental health policy outlines the need for a nationally coordinated strategy to address stigma and discrimination, particularly towards people with complex mental illness that is poorly understood in the community. To inform implementation of this policy, this review aimed to identify and examine the effectiveness of existing Australian programs or initiatives that aim to reduce stigma and discrimination. METHOD: Programs were identified via a search of academic databases and grey literature, and an online survey of key stakeholder organisations. Eligible programs aimed to reduce stigma towards people with complex mental illness, defined as schizophrenia, psychosis, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder; or they focused on nonspecific 'mental illness' but were conducted in settings relevant to individuals with the above diagnoses, or they included the above diagnoses in program content. Key relevant data from programs identified from the literature search and survey were extracted and synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 61 programs or initiatives currently available in Australia. These included face-to-face programs (n = 29), online resources (n = 19), awareness campaigns (n = 8), and advocacy work (n = 5). The primary target audiences for these initiatives were professionals (health or emergency), people with mental illness, family or carers of people with mental illness, and members of the general population. Most commonly, programs tended to focus on stigma towards people with non-specific mental illness rather than on particular diagnostic labels. Evidence for effectiveness was generally lacking. Face-to-face programs were the most well-evaluated, but only two used a randomised controlled trial design. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified areas of strength and weakness in current Australian practice for the reduction of stigma towards people with complex mental illness. Most programs have significant input from people with lived experience, and programs involving education and contact with a person with mental illness are a particular strength. Nevertheless, best-practice programs are not widely implemented, and we identified few programs targeting stigma for people with mental illness and their families, or for culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and LGBTIQ people. These can inform stakeholder consultations on effective options for a national stigma and discrimination reduction strategy.
BACKGROUND: Australian national mental health policy outlines the need for a nationally coordinated strategy to address stigma and discrimination, particularly towards people with complex mental illness that is poorly understood in the community. To inform implementation of this policy, this review aimed to identify and examine the effectiveness of existing Australian programs or initiatives that aim to reduce stigma and discrimination. METHOD: Programs were identified via a search of academic databases and grey literature, and an online survey of key stakeholder organisations. Eligible programs aimed to reduce stigma towards people with complex mental illness, defined as schizophrenia, psychosis, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder; or they focused on nonspecific 'mental illness' but were conducted in settings relevant to individuals with the above diagnoses, or they included the above diagnoses in program content. Key relevant data from programs identified from the literature search and survey were extracted and synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 61 programs or initiatives currently available in Australia. These included face-to-face programs (n = 29), online resources (n = 19), awareness campaigns (n = 8), and advocacy work (n = 5). The primary target audiences for these initiatives were professionals (health or emergency), people with mental illness, family or carers of people with mental illness, and members of the general population. Most commonly, programs tended to focus on stigma towards people with non-specific mental illness rather than on particular diagnostic labels. Evidence for effectiveness was generally lacking. Face-to-face programs were the most well-evaluated, but only two used a randomised controlled trial design. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified areas of strength and weakness in current Australian practice for the reduction of stigma towards people with complex mental illness. Most programs have significant input from people with lived experience, and programs involving education and contact with a person with mental illness are a particular strength. Nevertheless, best-practice programs are not widely implemented, and we identified few programs targeting stigma for people with mental illness and their families, or for culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and LGBTIQ people. These can inform stakeholder consultations on effective options for a national stigma and discrimination reduction strategy.
Authors: Patrick W Corrigan; Jonathon E Larson; Patrick J Michaels; Blythe A Buchholz; Rachel Del Rossi; Malia Javier Fontecchio; David Castro; Michael Gause; Richard Krzyżanowski; Nicolas Rüsch Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Shazana Shahwan; Chong Min Janrius Goh; Gregory Tee Hng Tan; Wei Jie Ong; Siow Ann Chong; Mythily Subramaniam Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390