Stigma towards mental illness and help-seeking behaviors among adult and child psychiatrists in Hungary: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Stigma towards people with mental health problems is a growing issue across the world, to which healthcare providers might contribute. The aim of the present study was to explore psychiatrists' attitudes towards their patients and link them to psychosocial and professional factors.
METHODS: An online questionnaire was used to approach the in- and outpatient psychiatric services across Hungary. A total of 211 trainees and specialists in adult and child psychiatry participated in our study. Their overall stigmatizing attitudes were measured, with focus on attitude, disclosure and help-seeking, and social distance dimensions by using the self-report Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to elucidate the dimensions of stigma and its association with sociodemographic, professional and personal traits.
RESULTS: Stigmatizing attitudes of close colleagues towards patients were statistically significant predictors of higher scores on the attitude [B = 0.235 (0.168-0.858), p = 0.004], the disclosure and help-seeking subscales [B = 0.169 (0.038-0.908), p = 0.033], and the total score of the OMS-HC [B = 0.191 (0.188-1.843), p = 0.016]. Psychiatrists who had already sought help for their own problems had lower scores on the disclosure and help-seeking subscale [B = 0.202 (0.248-1.925), p = 0.011]. The overall stigmatizing attitude was predicted by the openness to participate in case discussion, supervision or Balint groups [B = 0.166 (0.178-5.886), p = 0.037] besides the more favorable attitudes of their psychiatrist colleagues [B = 0.191 (0.188-1.843), p = 0.016].
CONCLUSIONS: The favorable attitudes of psychiatrists are associated with their own experiences with any kind of psychiatric condition, previous help-seeking behavior and the opportunity to work together with fellow psychiatrists, whose attitudes are less stigmatizing. The perception of fellow colleagues' attitudes towards patients and the openness to case discussion, supervision and Balint groups were the main two factors that affected the overall attitudes towards patients; therefore, these should be considered when tailoring anti-stigma interventions for psychiatrists.

Introduction

Stigma is an implicit or explicit social rejection originating from putative or actual negative characteristics of the individual or groups of individuals [1]. Stigmatization leads to a “spoiled identity” that negatively influences the life of the stigmatized person. People with mental health problems experience stigmatizing attitudes from the public and healthcare professionals as well [2], leading to the internalization of these beliefs [3]. This phenomenon alters the quality of life of the affected and depresses their life in the workplace, private and public environment as well as healthcare services [4]. It should be highlighted that people with mental health disorders have a shorter life expectancy that might be influenced by the stigma of help-seeking and the lack of treatment as a consequence [5]. Therefore, reducing discrimination and mental health-related stigmatization is highly beneficial for the affected people in many ways that might improve their overall well-being. Being experts in this field, mental health professionals are in the right position to reduce stigma via their clinical work and through the education of the public. However, it must be admitted that mental health related stigma appears in mental health care as well. In order to implement successful stigma reduction methods, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of factors that could influence these attitudes and to identify those that are protective against discrimination.

Several studies have examined the attitudes towards people with mental illnesses in the public and the healthcare sector [6-8]. Most of the results show that the public has more negative assumptions towards these people than healthcare workers. Negative attitudes might come from the lack of knowledge about mental disorders. Consequently, mental health professionals are the least stigmatizing group among healthcare workers. A study investigating students from different medical schools revealed that being in education programs in which mental health issues were prioritized was negatively correlated with stigmatizing attitudes [9]. However, in some cases, the direct and frequent contact with people with mental health problems has led to more stigmatization among mental health professionals and psychiatrists [10, 11]. These controversies might be explained by cultural reasons shown in a multicenter clinical trial involving various healthcare professionals from five different countries [12].

Only few investigations have been conducted to examine the stigmatizing attitudes of psychiatrists. There is conflicting evidence about psychiatrists holding stigmatizing views, to summarize the findings, psychiatrists seem to be less stigmatizing compared to other specialists [9, 13, 14]. A large Canadian study comprised of the population of 12 different anti-stigma programs for various healthcare professionals within the 15-year ongoing Opening Minds anti-stigma initiative reached the same conclusion, when comparing psychiatrists’ views to family physicians, rural physicians, anesthetists and surgeons [15]. Their results regarding psychiatrists are comparable with our findings, since they developed the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Healthcare Providers (OMS-HC) that was used in this study to measure stigmatizing attitudes.

Most recently, Brazilian psychiatrists were grouped based on their attitudes towards people with schizophrenia into high, intermediate and low stigma categories. Surprisingly, half of the study population was categorized into the high stigma group. The most stigmatizing group spent significantly longer time at work since graduation, had higher anxiety-state scores and lower positive affect [16]. According to a recent meta-analysis, the demand for personal accomplishment and burnout are predictors of more stigmatizing attitudes among healthcare providers [17]. A Belgian study investigating both professionals and service users pointed out that the associative stigma of mental health care providers was related to more self-stigma and dissatisfaction of the clients, besides the increased symptoms of burnout and the less job satisfaction of mental health professionals [18]. Therefore, as prevention, mental healthcare workers should be provided with supportive opportunities such as skill-based interventions [19], intensive social contact intervention with persons with lived experience of mental illness [20], unconscious bias informed education [21], and mindfulness based interventions to reduce the stress [22]. The Balint group is a patient-centered approach that deepens the understanding of the doctor-patient relationship and improves communication skills, which is protective against burnout syndrome [23]. It is also considered a valuable tool to reduce stress in physicians, which can consequently improve attitudes and the care they provide to patients [24]. Active psychotherapeutic practice usually also goes hand in hand with case discussion groups, which provide the participants with new skills to manage patients and reduce anxiety and stress. These tools improve the clinicians’ awareness and provide them with new skills, which are key elements of the more effective treatment and better outcomes. Lack of skills and training could cause healthcare providers to keep more distance from patients and feel less confident, resulting in negative attitudes and poorer treatment outcomes [25]. Accordingly, since higher levels of burnout and low personal accomplishment were associated with more negative attitudes towards patients among healthcare workers, their support and education might play an essential role in increasing their confidence and mitigating their stigmatizing attitudes [26]. The results of a multicenter study, which included a Hungarian sample as well, revealed that people with mental health disorders experience stigma in private life, at work and in health care settings. The stigmatization seemed to be higher in post-communist countries as compared with others [4]. Nonetheless, the stigmatizing attitudes of mental health professionals and psychiatrists had never been studied in Hungary.

We aimed to investigate the stigma construct in-depth by examining associations with sociodemographic and professional factors, personal experiences and mental health problems in a sample of specialists and trainees in adult, child and adolescent psychiatrists in Hungary.

Materials and methods

Study overview and participants

This was a cross-sectional, observational anonymous online survey study conducted to measure the stigmatizing attitudes of trainees and specialists in adult, child and adolescent psychiatry in Hungary. Altogether an estimated 972 professionals in psychiatry, from which the estimated maximum of 635 work in the public health sector (trainees in general adult psychiatry: 140, trainees in child and adolescent psychiatry: 47, specialists in general adult psychiatry: 700 –of whom 403 work in the public health sector -, specialists in child and adolescent psychiatry: 85) work in Hungary. Our research group contacted a total of 50 adult and 10 child psychiatric inpatient services together with 52 adult and 17 child outpatient services across Hungary, serving both urban and rural areas, via e-mail and telephone. The survey link was sent directly to the head of the unit, who was asked to forward it to the psychiatrist colleagues. To broaden the study population, the survey link was also shared through social media platforms. It was included in the newsletter of the Hungarian Association of Psychiatric Trainees and the Hungarian Psychiatric Association.

Measurements

Psychosocial and demographic data

Ten direct questions on demographic information and twelve questions on the participants’ mental health, their close family members, attitudes towards psychotherapy and case discussion groups were raised. The following details were gathered: age range, sex, work status, years of experience in psychiatry, type and place of the working institute, having any friend or family member with mental health problems, own experience with mental health problems, experience in psychotherapy, accessibility and demand for attending case discussion, supervision or Balint groups, and the stigmatizing attitudes of colleagues who work in the institute as the participant.

Stigmatizing attitudes

The OMS-HC is a widely used self-report questionnaire that contains statements describing feelings and opinions about people with mental health problems. Subjects indicate on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”) the extent to which each given statement characterizes them. Five items are reverse coded (1 = “strongly agree” to 5 = “strongly disagree”). The overall stigmatizing attitudes of the participants are described with the total score of the scale (a minimum of 14 and a maximum of 70 points). Besides the total score, three dimensions can be calculated by evaluating the three subscales of the questionnaire (Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking and Social distance). Higher scores reflect more stigmatizing attitudes.

The original 20-item version of the scale [27] was shortened to 15 items by Modgill [15] to gain a more stable factor solution. The scale structure has also been investigated in Italy, Chile and Singapore [28-30]. The Hungarian version of the OMS-HC has strong psychometric properties [31]. It shows a bifactor structure, in which the three dimensions of the stigma (Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking as well as and Social distance) have been confirmed, and it consists of 14 statements. Its test-retest reliability was found to be excellent for the total score and good for the three subscales, and a good concurrent validity was measured for the total score with the Mental Illness: Clinician’s Attitudes-4 scale (intraclass correlation coefficient value was 0.77 [95% confidence interval ranged between 0.11 and 0.92]).

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Regional and Institutional Committee of Science and Research Ethics of the Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary (approval number: SE-RKEB: 189/2019) and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to the enrolment, all of the participants provided their informed consents via the online survey.

Statistical approach

Demographic data are expressed as the sample size (n) with percentages (%). Since the data did not follow the normal distribution, the median and interquartile ranges were calculated (IQR) for continuous variables, and non-parametric tests were performed. For comparison of two groups, we used the Mann-Whitney U test with the Monte Carlo simulation method, whereas we applied a non-parametric one-way ANOVA test for more than two groups. Stepwise multiple linear regression analyses were performed using the OMS-HC total and subscale scores as dependent variables and personal and professional factors as independent variables. Standardized Betas, p-values, 95% confidence intervals and explained variances (r2) are listed as indicators. R2 was calculated as an index of the percentage of the variation in the criterion (stigma scores) explained by the predictors (personal and professional factors). Statistical significance was reported at p<0.05. The following softwares were used for the statistical analyses: IBM SPSS 25 (Apache Software Foundation, USA) and GraphPad Prism 8.0.1 (GraphPad Softwares Inc, USA).

Results

A total of n = 238 professionals in psychiatry responded to our survey, the data of 211 subjects were analyzed who completed the entire survey. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the subjects. The majority of the participants were female (76%), with the overrepresentation of young colleagues between 24 and35 years of age (54%). Most of them were adult psychiatrists (64%) and specialists (57%). In approximately two-thirds of the cases, they worked in inpatient services (66%), and their workplace was in the capital (62%).

Table 1

Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.

Variables		n (%)
Age group (years)	24–35	114 (54)
	36–45	34 (16)
	46–55	38 (18)
	56–65	16 (8)
	66–75	9 (4)
Gender	Male	50 (24)
	Female	161 (76)
Professional group	Trainee	90 (43)
	Specialist	121 (57)
Location of workplace	Capital	131 (62)
	County capital	61 (29)
	City	10 (5)
	Town	9 (4)
Type of practice they work in the majority of their working hours	Inpatient hospital	139 (66)
	Outpatient service	55 (26)
	Exclusively private practice	9 (4)
	Daycare service	5 (2)
	Other	3 (2)
Ever experienced negative discrimination for working as a psychiatrist	Yes	91(43)
	No	119 (57)
Having friends or family members with mental illness	Yes	124 (59)
	No	77 (36)
	I do not know	9 (4)
Ever been medically treated for any psychiatric problems	Yes	41 (19)
	No	169 (80)
Ever been participating in psychotherapy for any reason	Yes	156 (74)
	No	50 (24)

Descriptive statistics were presented.

Fig 1 presents the distribution of responses to each OMS-HC item. On attitude and social distance subscales, the responses clearly indicated that the majority of the participants have positive attitudes towards people with mental health problems. As Fig 1 illustrates, the results concerning disclosure and help-seeking statements were mixed. One half of the subjects agreed, and the other half was neutral or disagreed with the following items: “I would be reluctant to seek help if I had a mental illness” and “If I were under treatment for a mental illness, I would not disclose this to any of my colleagues”; however, 73% of them would tell their friends if they had a mental illness.

Fig 1

Distribution of responses to items of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (14 items).

The total score of the 14-item OMS-HC could range from 14 to 70, subscale scores for attitude, disclosure and help-seeking, and social distance vary between 5 and25, 4 and20, and 5 and 25, respectively. Table 2 shows that the overall stigmatizing attitudes of participants, which is represented by the total score (median: 29, IQR: 26–32), as well as their attitude (median: 10, IQR: 8–11) and social distance subscale (median: 10, IQR: 8–11) scores, were in the lowest third of the maximum reachable score. However, disclosure and help-seeking (median: 10, IQR: 8–12) were relatively higher since only four items belong to this subscale; therefore, the reachable maximum score is lower. There were no statistically significant differences by grouping respondents according to age ranges, sex, work status, years of experience in psychiatry, type and place of institute, and the mental health problem of any of their close friends or family members. Conversely, we found statistically significant differences between the subscale scores of participants categorized into different groups based on psychotherapeutic activity, seeking help for their own mental health problems, openness and having a possibility to participate in case discussion, supervision or Balint groups and attitudes of close psychiatrist colleagues towards patients.

Table 2

OMS-HC subscale scores and total scores of the participants.

				Attitude		p	Disclosure and help-seeking		p	Social distance		p	14-item total		p
		n	(%)	Median	IQR		Median	IQR		Median	IQR		Median	IQR
Overall		211	100	10	8–11		10	8–12		10	8–11		29	26–32
Professional group	Adult	135	66	10	8–11	0.385	10	9–12	0.053	9	7–11	0.525	29	26–33	0.706
	Child	69	34	10	8–11		9	8–11		10	8–11		29	26.5–32
Actively provides psychotherapy	Yes	101	48	9	8–11	0.028	10	8–11	0.877	10	8–11	0.749	29	26–32	0.507
	No	110	52	10	8–11		10	8–12		9	8–11		29	25.75–33
Ever sought help for own mental health problems	Yes	98	46	10	8–11	0.416	9	7.75–12	0.042	9	7–11	0.037	28.5	24.75–32	0.107
	No	111	53	10	8–11		10	9–12		10	8–11		29	26–33
Be open to participating in case discussion groups*	Yes	184	87	10	8–11	0.182	10	8–11	0.012	9	7–11	0.016	29	25–32	0.004
	No	27	13	10	9–12		11	9–13		11	9–11		32	28–35
Has a possibility to participate in case discussion groups*	Yes	132	63	10	8–11	0.126	10	8–11	0.251	9	7–11	0.186	28	25.25–32	0.046
	No	79	37	10	8–12		10	9–12		10	8–11		30	27–33
Close psychiatrist colleagues’ stigmatizing attitudes towards their patients	not at all	48	23	9	7–10	0.017	9	8–11	0.021	9.5	7–10.75	0.240	27	25–32	0.044
	to small extent	75	36	10	8–11		9	8–11		9	7–11		29	24–32
	to some extent	62	29	10	8–12		10	9–12		10	8–11		30	27–34
	to great extent	25	12	10	9–11		11	10–12.5		9	8–10		31	27.5–33

* Case discussion groups, supervision or Balint groups

Mann-Whitney U test with Monte Carlo Simulation and Non-parametric Analysis of variance was applied. The statistically significant results (p < 0.05) are in bold.

To further investigate the relationship between the total and subscale scores of the OMS-HC and the characteristics of the participants, multiple regression analyses were performed. Table 3 presents that most of the differences remained statistically significant in the prediction model; moreover, some other factors were revealed to be statistically significant predictors of stigma. Altogether, the tested variables could explain 10% of the attitude, 7% of the disclosure and help-seeking, 9% of the social distance subscale and 7% of the total stigma score. The results showed that the more stigmatizing attitudes of close colleagues towards patients were a statistically significant predictor of higher scores on the attitude [B = 0.235 (0.168–0.858), p = 0.004], the disclosure and help-seeking subscales [B = 0.169 (0.038–0.908), p = 0.033], and the total score of the OMS-HC [B = 0.191 (0.188–1.843), p = 0.016]. Active psychotherapeutic practice [B = 0.179 (0.099–1.425), p = 0.025] and the experience of negative discrimination for working as a psychiatrist [B = 0.163 (0.024–1.364), p = 0.042] predicted lower attitude scores. Psychiatrists who had ever sought help for their own problems had lower scores on the disclosure and help-seeking subscale [B = 0.202 (0.248–1.925), p = 0.011]. Being ever medically treated for any kind of mental health problems [B = 0.184 (0.185–2.063), p = 0.019] and the experience of negative discrimination for being a psychiatrist [B = 0.245 (0.439–1.931), p = 0.043] were predictors of lower social distance scores. The overall stigmatizing attitude was predicted by the openness to participate in case discussion, supervision or Balint groups [B = 0.166 (0.178–5.886), p = 0.037] besides the more favorable attitudes of their psychiatrist colleagues [B = 0.191 (0.188–1.843), p = 0.016].

Table 3

Standardized beta coefficient estimates represent the analysis of OMS-HC total and subscales scores adjusted for professional and personal factors.

	Beta	p-value	95%CI	r2
Attitude
Close psychiatrist colleagues’ stigmatizing attitudes towards their patients	0.235	0.004	0.168–0.858	0.104
Actively provides psychotherapy	0.179	0.025	0.099–1.425
Has experienced negative discrimination for working as a psychiatrist	0.163	0.042	0.024–1.364
Disclosure and Help-seeking
Ever sought help for own mental health problems	0.202	0.011	0.248–1.925	0.070
Close psychiatrist colleagues’ stigmatizing attitudes towards their patients	0.169	0.033	0.038–0.908
Social distance
Has experienced negative discrimination for working as a psychiatrist	0.245	0.002	0.439–1.931	0.090
Ever been medically treated for a mental health problem	0.184	0.019	0.185–2.063
14-item total
Close psychiatrist colleagues’ stigmatizing attitudes towards their patients	0.191	0.016	0.188–1.843	0.067
Be open to participating in case discussion groups*	0.166	0.037	0.178–5.886

* Case discussion groups, supervision or Balint groups.

Multiple linear regression analysis using stepwise method. 95% CI = 95% Confidence interval, r2 = Rho square. Only the statistically significant results are presented (p ≤ 0.05).

Discussion

Due to there being a scarcity of studies in the literature investigating stigma among mental healthcare providers (the majority being social workers, nurses, psychologists, etc.), the authors of the present study aimed to investigate the attitudes of child and adult psychiatrists towards people with mental health problems. Moreover, this was the first study conducted in Hungary in the field of stigma from the mental health professionals’ point of view. Thus, the attitudes of Hungarian adult, child and adolescent psychiatrists and trainees were measured towards their patients with the focus on their link to professional, personal and sociodemographic factors. Twenty-two percent of the practitioners were approached this way who work as a doctor in mental health care in Hungary. The Hungarian psychiatrists’ median total scores of the OMS-HC (29 points) were comparable to those of Canadian physicians. The average scores found in the Canadian samples were the following: trainees (n = 35, score = 24.43 points) and specialists in psychiatry (n = 68, score = 22.91 points; and n = 79, score = 30.3 points, respectively) [15, 32]. Similarly to their Canadian colleagues, Hungarian psychiatrists generally hold positive attitudes towards individuals with mental illness since their stigma scores were in the lowest third of the maximum. In Bahrain, the mean stigma scores of mental healthcare professionals were much higher (score = 36.8), suggesting more stigmatizing attitudes than Canadian or Hungarian psychiatrists [14]. Most of the participants (76%) were female, which is in line with the higher proportion and the increasing number of female physicians in Hungary, which is even higher among child psychiatrists. There was no indicated gender ratio specifically for psychiatrists in the Canadian and Bahrainian samples. However, the proportion of females was also higher in the total samples including all professionals: 62% in Bahrain and 77.8% in Canada.”

The responses unequivocally demonstrate that the majority of the participating psychiatrists’ answers reflect favorable attitudes towards people with mental health problems, and they do not keep much social distance. However, participants had mixed views regarding disclosure and help-seeking. It seems that almost 50% of the sample would be reluctant to seek help for their own mental illness, or at least they would hesitate before doing so and would not disclose the problem to their colleagues. These are in line with the theory that at the workplace, having a mental illness is perceived as less competent, dangerous and unpredictable and that working itself is not considered healthy for people with mental illnesses [33]. When compared to Hungary, a higher proportion of Singaporean medical students were either neutral or reluctant to seek help for their own mental health problems (53.4% vs. 46.9%) and less likely to disclose them to any of their colleagues (86.5% vs. 54.5%) [29]. The results concerning nursing students from Singapore are also higher in the aforementioned areas than in Hungarian psychiatrists. Although the OMS-HC was developed for healthcare workers, there can be differences in the attitudes of different professionals. Our results align with studies that illustrate that psychiatrists or medical students considering becoming a psychiatrist possess more favorable attitudes [9, 13]. Altogether, 16.6% of the respondents agreed that they would see themselves as weak if they had a mental illness and could not fix it themselves. The feeling of being weak due to having a mental illness can also contribute to the obstacles in disclosure, as described in a study on nearly two thousand doctors whose main concerns were being labeled, confidentiality and not understanding the support structures may or may not be in place [34].

Since there is a lack of data on their own mental health problems, it is important to note that information was gathered on the practitioners’ lived experience as well. More than half of the respondents (59%) had a close relative who was suffering from a mental illness, nearly half of them (46%) sought help for their own mental health problems at some stage in their life, and one fifth of them (19%) was medically treated for any kind of psychiatric problems.

One of the main findings of the current study is that those who have ever sought help for their own mental problems keep less social distance from their patients and are more likely to present help-seeking behavior in the future as compared to those who have never sought professional help. The above findings are similar to those of Brazilian mental healthcare workers who were psychiatrists in the majority [11]. In Brazil, two-thirds of the sample population had contact with family members suffering from psychiatric disorders, 38% sought help for their own mental health problems, and a quarter of them received a prescription for the problem. They also demonstrated that rare contacts with the affected family member resulted in less stigma towards patients with schizophrenia. However, their own help-seeking behavior was not associated with their stigmatizing attitudes. In parallel with the Brazilians, the stigmatizing attitudes of Asian medical students towards mental illnesses were not related to their own help-seeking behavior either [35].

In contrast, disclosure and help-seeking scores in our study were statistically significantly associated with the following: help-seeking behavior of the participants in the past, the openness to participate in case discussion, supervision or Balint groups and the stigmatizing attitudes of close colleagues. Consequently, those who have more positive experiences with seeking mental help or are ready to talk about their cases and feelings have more favorable attitudes towards their patients. These findings support the aims of stigma reduction programs since workshops promoting conscious engagement with patients with mental illnesses, including group discussion, role-play simulation, debriefing, case discussion and facilitated self-reflection exercises, are able to reach statistically significant decreases in the implicit stigma of participants [36]. Providing psychotherapy for patients, which predicted favorable scores on the attitude subscale in this study, usually also includes case discussion, supervision and skill development. In accordance with the findings in an interventional study, acceptance and commitment training and multicultural training resulted in a positive impact on stigma among drug abuse counselors. The training in acceptance and commitment also significantly changed the believability of stigmatizing attitudes, and follow-up gained in burnout exceeded those of multicultural training. Clinicians, including psychiatrists, often feel a sense of hopelessness regarding whether they can help people with their skills [37]. The lack of confidence and the perceived lack of competence may reinforce their negative attitudes. Case discussion and Balint groups help professionals to see the person behind their mental illness, reduce anxiety and stress and provide the clinician with new skills, improve awareness to avoid unconscious biases, which are all important factors in lowering stigmatizing attitudes toward patients and mitigating their destructive impact on patients [21, 24, 25].Our findings also draw attention to the important phenomenon when someone’s close co-workers stigmatize; then the person likely does so, too. The extent of close psychiatrist colleagues’ attitudes, based on the perception of the respondents, was not only associated with but also statistically significantly predicted the attitudes of the respondents towards their patients on the one hand, and the disclosure and help-seeking behavior for their mental health issues on the other. This is consistent with how someone’s perceived stigmatizing views of mental illness in other staff members are linked to their self-disclosure. In our sample, 40% of the participants reported that their close colleagues held negative attitudes at least to some extent towards people with mental health problems. A qualitative study from the United Kingdom demonstrated that attitudes of not psychiatrist healthcare professionals towards colleagues with a mental illness were positive; however, they did report that other colleagues held negative attitudes [38]. Lessening the stigma at the workplace among psychiatrists could allow us to intervene since, in work environments, where peer-led initiatives are featured, mental health professionals feel safer when they can disclose their own lived experiences to their colleagues [39].

It should be highlighted that almost half of our study population (43%) had never experienced discrimination for working as a psychiatrist, and this was the strongest predictor of keeping more distance from the patients. The stigma towards psychiatrists [40] and the discipline of psychiatry [41] among healthcare professionals working in different sectors, as well as the general public [42], is an existing issue, which has been reported in many studies. This professional stigma may lead to psychiatrists enacting stigma towards their patients. Associative stigma was linked with depersonalization and emotional exhaustion in a Belgian research study among mental health professionals [18]. Stress and less job satisfaction are fertile soil for more negative attitudes towards both colleagues and patients, and it could have a detrimental effect on patient care [43]. The associative stigma towards psychiatry in Hungary has not been investigated yet; this needs to be addressed.

It should be taken into consideration that investigating stigmatizing views is challenging because the unequivocal demonstration of a positive attitude cannot be disregarded in interviews, especially in self-reported scales. This study aimed to gather information on what psychiatrists think about their attitudes, which could also be biased; however, it is still a less studied area in the broad literature.

Everyone contributes to the stigmatization of people with mental health problems. According to Loch and Rössler, psychiatrists who maintain prejudices are at the intermediate level between the macro level including the general public and mass media, and micro level which includes friends, family, and the individual with mental illness as well via self-stigmatization [44]. Our findings are in line with the literature that psychiatrists generally hold positive views towards patients, but they also prefer to keep a suitable social distance from them. Therefore, even though they have more positive attitudes than other healthcare workers and even though psychiatrists have vast knowledge on mental health, they also contribute negatively to the stigma of the disorder in the inner social circle of the patients. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommended that mental health professionals be made aware of their possible prejudices against people with psychiatric problems because such behavior influences the perception of the general public and may contribute negatively to the social acceptance of such people [45].

In accordance with the recommendations, everything that increases awareness and trains the clinician to develop new skills, such as case discussion, psychotherapy could be considered a useful tool in mitigating the stigma in psychiatrists toward patients. Also, since the lived experience with a person with mental health problems is associated with more positive attitudes, education, contact-based education, non-professional personal connection with people with mental illness and skill development are beneficial for psychiatrists.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations that must be considered to contextualize the reported findings properly. Firstly, the authors tried to contact all Hungarian psychiatrists; however, some were not available e.g. due to long term leave, and it was also difficult to reach colleagues who work in the private sector; therefore, convenience sampling could be considered a potential limitation of the study. It is quite complicated to obtain proper details on the number of practising psychiatrists in Hungary. The response rate was 22% for all psychiatrists (33% for those who work solely in the public health sector) counted based on the estimated number of professionals, which is similar to other studies investigated among psychiatrists (33% and 27.1%) [13, 46]. However, the sample could have been larger to be able to generalize findings for Hungary. Secondly, the authors—not counting the supervisors—are members of the Hungarian Association of Psychiatric Trainees; therefore due to our sampling method and regarding the fact that colleagues were also contacted via social media, approached individuals were mainly young who worked in the public sector. Accordingly, our study population consisted primarily of trainees and young specialists in adult and child psychiatry (54% of the subjects were between 24 and 35 years of age); thus, more experienced practitioners and those who work in private praxis are underrepresented in the study. Therefore, this may limit the generalizability of the results, and comparisons to other studies are limited. On the other hand, the sample represents more the ‘next generation’ and young colleagues in the field influencing the future. Lastly, considering the number of statistical tests performed, regression results may have limited validity.

Conclusions

The authors tried to understand better the stigma construct by delving into the stigmatizing attitudes of practising psychiatrists towards their patients. The association was examined between the attitude, disclosure and help-seeking, social distance dimensions of their stigma, and personal and professional factors. The perception of fellow colleagues’ attitudes towards patients and the openness to case discussion, supervision and Balint groups were the main two factors that affected the overall attitudes towards patients. These should be considered when tailoring anti-stigma interventions for psychiatrists. In Hungary, the presented data will contribute to a currently ongoing development of a national anti-stigma program.

Although there are many studies on other healthcare providers, only a handful of them investigate the stigmatizing attitudes of psychiatrists. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only comprehensive study conducted exclusively on psychiatrists that draws a link between the stigma towards patients and the presence of psychotherapeutic activity, interest in case discussion groups and the stigma towards psychiatry. According to our results, the favorable attitudes of psychiatrists are associated with their own lived experiences with any kind of psychiatric condition along with previous help-seeking behavior and the opportunity to work together with fellow psychiatrists, whose attitudes are less stigmatizing. The Hungarian psychiatrist population generally holds positive attitudes towards their patients; however, this study highlights the need to develop anti-stigma programs for psychiatrists. In the future, multi-center studies on psychiatrists’ attitudes could provide essential insights into the differences between countries since there is a lack of international studies investigating the stigma towards patients. On the other hand, longitudinal studies examining factors associated with stigma would expand our existing knowledge.

Questionnaire in English including the sociodemographic and professional questions and the Opening Minds Stigma Scale.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

18 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephan Doering, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This was an excellent paper with a relativity large sample size and encouraging to find some interventions to help combat stigma. It is clear alot of work has been put into this. The main critique of the paper comes from some issues with the English wording and use of 1st person (we, he) rather than 3rd person tense.). There was some informal language also “nearly every other psychiatrist” and acknowledging “ my best friend” which should be removed. I would recommend having an English proof reader look over the paper before it is published.

It was also be useful to know what questions were asked of the participants- maybe this could be in the appendix. It would also be good to comment that most of the participants were female.

I’m also interested to know more about the evidence of using ballint groups and link to psychotherapy as indications of people having less stigmatising views. This would explain why you chose to ask these particular questions. I think this should be included in the introduction and some of the other studies which are less relevant could be cut out. In particular, the conflicting studies about how stigmatising a group psychiatrists are in general, could be summarised to say that there are conflicting evidence about psychiatrists holding stigmatising views. More detail about the large Canadian study which this study seems to have compared itself to would also be useful in the introduction.

To summarise, this was a great paper but needs a bit of refinement before being published. There is a good opportunity to cut back on the word count from the introduction and focus on studies which are more relevant to the study. It would also be worthwhile having an professional English proofreader review the study so that it reads less informally.

Reviewer #2: Stigma towards mental illness and help seeking behaviours amount adult and child psychiatrist in Hungary: across sectional study

Thank you for the opportunity to review. Overall this is an interesting paper with new information to add to the field. I have the following questions and comments/suggestions for improvement for the authors’ consideration:

1. The notion of stigma is complex and the semantics can be confusing. Suggest the authors elaborate more clearly what they mean by stigma in a number of places throughout the Introduction. For example, page 4 first paragraph last sentence: “… the support of professionals might play and essential role in mitigating stigma since higher levels of burnout were associated with more negative attitudes towards patients”. It is unclear what are the authors mean - support for professionals will mitigate having stigmatizing attitudes, or mitigating stigma in their patients, or in society in general. Page 3, last sentence -…”demand for personal accomplishment and burn out or predictors of stigma…” Again this stigma is unclear in what the authors are referring to. Please review carefully throughout the introduction.

2. Page 3, it will be helpful to explain the Weak-not-sick scale for the readership.

3. A broader review of how to support mental health workers will be helpful, rather than providing two choices such as case discussion or a Balint group. It’s as if these are already well accepted and only choices. If there are evidence and literature to support their effectiveness please provide such.

4. Page 4, Methods. The research group contacted 60 child psychiatric inpatient services and 69 outpatient services with many other efforts. It will be helpful to estimate what are the total number of potential recipients here (only later mentioned in the Results ), and the percentage that the 238 respondents represent. The response rates seem very low, and more analysis and explanations of the rate of response would be helpful. This should be a limitation in the discussion as well.

5. Page 4, last paragraph that talks about the Hungarian version of the OMSHC seem out of place in describing the process of translation and concept checking, after citing the psychometric properties and the test retest reliability of the Hungarian version already in the preceding paragraph. This could be either incorporated in introducing this Hungarian version or be omitted.

6. Also it is unclear what do the authors mean by “a good concurrent validity was calculated with a mental illness clinicians attitude- 4 scale. More explanation is needed.

7. Under statistics, there is no mention of multi test corrections since this is a large item by item analyses in correlations and regressions. A statistics expert reviewer may be needed.

8. There are a number of small grammatical errors that could be checked. For examples: Page 14 second last paragraph “practitioner’s personal affection as well” is poor choice of words. Missing a verb in the sentence about nursing students from Singapore, and they were “one fifth” on top of page 15, etc.

9. In the Discussion I wonder whether the common phenomenon of people wanting to provide socially approved answers, particularly given that the survey is for medical professionals should be considered as a factor for discussion. The authors do talk confidently about “unequivocal demonstration of a positive attitude.” This is a worthwhile in any survey to consider, even if done anonymously.

10. One would hope for more in-depth reflections and discussions on why certain findings are the way they are, in addition to the numerical comparisons with other settings such as those in Singapore or Brazil or Bahrain. These comparisons themselves do not give rise to understanding beyond a cross cultural difference that the authors are bringing to light. The explanations about why a group discussion helps to lower stigma is on the right track, but it could be further illuminated on why such contact or discussion would lead to lowering of stigma.

11. Are there theories within mental health stigma that the authors could invoke.? It would be helpful to find a theory that the authors would like to anchor some of their findings rather than relying on statistical correlational results as an explanation in and of itself.

12. Last paragraph, page 16, interesting to highlight that psychiatrist who have experienced discrimination have more distance from their patients. Do the authors have some understanding in theory rather than stating that it’s an existing issue that needs to be further addressed?

13. Limitations: the very low response rate, the statistical corrections needed, why were some people not available, what are the reasons behind her low response and why is the sampling method more likely to reach and get responses from the younger individuals, what biases might have these selective samples introduced to the results should all be explored and discussed.

14. Strength of the paper is, as the authors also concluded, that there is a limited number of studies on psychiatrists and issues related to stigma. And it’s a solid study that can be further improved.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review Apr 2022.docx

Click here for additional data file.

29 May 2022

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Thank you very much for the comments, we corrected the manuscript accordingly and uploaded the dataset to a public repository.

Reviewer #1

This was an excellent paper with a relativity large sample size and encouraging to find some interventions to help combat stigma. It is clear a lot of work has been put into this. The main critique of the paper comes from some issues with the English wording and use of 1st person (we, he) rather than 3rd person tense.). There was some informal language also “nearly every other psychiatrist” and acknowledging “my best friend” which should be removed. English proof reader look over the paper before it is published.

It was also be useful to know what questions were asked of the participants- maybe this could be in the appendix. It would also be good to comment that most of the participants were female.

I’m also interested to know more about the evidence of using Balint groups and link to psychotherapy as indications of people having less stigmatising views. This would explain why you chose to ask these particular questions. I think this should be included in the introduction nd some of the other studies which are less relevant could be cut out. In particular, the conflicting studies about how stigmatising a group psychiatrists are in general, could be summarised to say that there are conflicting evidence about psychiatrists holding stigmatising views. More detail about the large Canadian study which this study seems to have compared itself to would also be useful in the introduction.

To summarise, this was a great paper but needs a bit of refinement before being published. There is a good opportunity to cut back on the word count from the introduction and focus on studies which are more relevant to the study. It would also be worthwhile having an professional English proofreader review the study so that it reads less informally.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our work and provide us with your expertise. Your suggestions are highly appreciated; we have taken into consideration all of the comments and recommendations you raised.

Based on your suggestion, we sent our manuscript to an English proofreading service, who thoroughly corrected the English grammar and wording. We also changed the informal language to more formal wording to maintain a consistent register throughout.

We have enclosed the questionnaire as supplementary material.

In Hungary, the majority of psychiatrists are female, especially child psychiatrists. Since child psychiatrists were overrepresented in the sample, following your insightful suggestion, we added the following to the discussion to comment.

“Most of the participants (76%) were female, which is in line with the higher proportion and the increasing number of female physicians in Hungary, which is even higher among child psychiatrists. There was no indicated gender ratio specifically for psychiatrists in the Canadian and Bahrainian samples. However, the proportion of females was also higher in the total samples including all professionals: 62% in Bahrain and 77.8% in Canada.”

It is worth noting the Canadian study included a diverse sample of healthcare professionals and the Bahrainian study consisted of mental healthcare workers.

We have conducted an extensive literature search, and have added additional pertinent information concerning the positive effect of case discussion, psychotherapy, and Balint groups on the attitudes of psychiatrists towards patients. In fact, the idea of Balint groups was derived from the lived experience of the authors as well. We are all active Balint group attendees and feel these sessions are very helpful in the opinion-forming of our patients and we generally get a better understanding of the patient-doctor relationship during these sessions and feel more empathy towards them.

I am additionally grateful to you for the suggestion of cutting back the word count. We abbreviated the general introduction, and summarized the conflicting studies in a sentence based on your comment, and added more detail about the Canadian study. However, the other reviewer requested some additional information in the introduction, therefore, the overall manuscript is not shorter than it was before.

We are grateful to you for drawing our attention to all of these issues. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the important suggestions.

Reviewer #2

Stigma towards mental illness and help seeking behaviours amount adult and child psychiatrist in Hungary: across sectional study

Thank you for the opportunity to review. Overall this is an interesting paper with new information to add to the field. I have the following questions and comments/suggestions for improvement for the authors’ consideration:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our work and provide us with your expertise. Your suggestions are highly appreciated; we have taken into consideration all of the comments and recommendations you raised.

1. The notion of stigma is complex and the semantics can be confusing. Suggest the authors elaborate more clearly what they mean by stigma in a number of places throughout the Introduction. For example, page 4 first paragraph last sentence: “… the support of professionals might play an essential role in mitigating stigma since higher levels of burnout were associated with more negative attitudes towards patients”. It is unclear what are the authors mean - support for professionals will mitigate having stigmatizing attitudes, or mitigating stigma in their patients, or in society in general. Page 3, last sentence -…”demand for personal accomplishment and burnout or predictors of stigma…” Again this stigma is unclear in what the authors are referring to. Please review carefully throughout the introduction.

Thank you for drawing our attention to the issue that the introduction should be improved in clarity. We identified several parts in the introduction that lacked clarity.

2. Page 3, it will be helpful to explain the Weak-not-sick scale for the readership.

Thank you, we would have been happy to give more details about the Weak-not-sick scale. However, based on the other reviewer’s request we tried to shorten the introduction -in particular the part concerning the conflicting studies about how stigmatising a group of psychiatrists are in general. Therefore, we cited the research paper, but omitted the text about the Weak-not-sick scale. Thank you for your understanding.

3. A broader review of how to support mental health workers will be helpful, rather than providing two choices such as case discussion or a Balint group. It’s as if these are already well accepted and only choices. If there are evidence and literature to support their effectiveness please provide such.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We listed other approaches rather than case discussion or Balint groups that support clinicians. Please note that an extensive literature review could not have been done because the other reviewer requested the shortening of the introduction and listing all the current available means of support for mental health workers would go beyond this manuscript.

We provided more evidence both on the possible support of psychiatrists linked to our findings with the main focus on Balint- and case discussion groups in the introduction, and the discussion sessions based on your suggestion.

4. Page 4, Methods. The research group contacted 60 child psychiatric inpatient services and 69 outpatient services with many other efforts. It will be helpful to estimate what are the total number of potential recipients here (only later mentioned in the Results ), and the percentage that the 238 respondents represent. The response rates seem very low, and more analysis and explanations of the rate of response would be helpful. This should be a limitation in the discussion as well.

Thank you very much for raising this crucial issue. We have added more details to the methods section. There is no proper data on the number of psychiatrists who work in Hungary, however, based on the estimation after contacting each medical university and the professional associations we learned that altogether in the public sector a maximum of 635 practitioners work in the field of general adult and child psychiatry (including trainees). It is quite difficult to discern the exact numbers since some colleagues work only a few hours a week, or are passive, or are on leave from work for a longer period. Furthermore, they were also counted as full-time workers.

We contacted all psychiatric services in Hungary, the majority of the outpatient services are in the countryside, in which only 1 or 2 psychiatrists work -especially in the field of child psychiatry. (Telling the truth, it is a very sad fact that there are some counties where there is only 1 specialist for 2 counties).

The response rate was 238/635= 0.3748. Physicians are often a group with low survey response rates and we have looked for research that investigates the response rates among physician specialists. According to a Canadian study done in 2015, which aimed to explore the response rates of specialists, 27.1% of psychiatrists responded (Cunningham et al. 2015). An Australian study’s rate was quite similar to ours (33% for psychiatrists) (Reavley et al. 2013).

We contacted the head of the service in each case, it might have been the case that he or she did not forward our survey to their colleagues.

We were not able to reach those colleagues who work in the private sector, this was also mentioned in the limitation section.

To sum up, we have included the more detailed numbers in the methods section and added relevant information in the limitations. Thank you for raising the question on the numbers!

5. Page 4, last paragraph that talks about the Hungarian version of the OMSHC seem out of place in describing the process of translation and concept checking, after citing the psychometric properties and the test retest reliability of the Hungarian version already in the preceding paragraph. This could be either incorporated in introducing this Hungarian version or be omitted.

Thank you very much for your suggestion, we share your views and see the unnecessity of the last paragraph, therefore, we have omitted this part.

6. Also it is unclear what do the authors mean by “a good concurrent validity was calculated with a mental illness clinicians attitude- 4 scale. More explanation is needed.

Thank you very much for requesting more detail. This was also described in our previous article on the psychometric properties of the scale. Therefore, we have added the intraclass correlation coefficient (value is considered good above 0.7) and its 95% confidence interval to the sentence to give more details about the concurrent validity.

“Its test-retest reliability was found to be excellent for the total score and good for the three subscales, and a good concurrent validity was measured for the total score with the Mental Illness: Clinician’s Attitudes-4 scale (intraclass correlation coefficient value was 0.77 [95% confidence interval ranged between 0.11 and 0.92]).„

7. Under statistics, there is no mention of multi test corrections since this is a large item by item analyses in correlations and regressions. A statistics expert reviewer may be needed.

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The number of variables, and the relatively low number of cases could be important limitations. In the case of non-parametric ANOVA -where more than two groups were analysed, for example, ‘Close psychiatrist colleagues’ stigmatizing attitudes towards their patients’, the multiple comparison analyses could have been calculated with Bonferroni correction. However, we did not perform multiple comparisons between groups, therefore multi-test correlations were not appropriate.

In the case of linear regression, multi-correlation tests are not built into the SPSS software package. We used instead the bootstrap method to construct 95% confidence intervals of the results to be 95% confident the interval contains the true value of beta estimates.

Therefore, based on your comment, we have included the following sentence in the limitations section:

Lastly, considering the number of statistical tests performed, regression results may have limited validity.

8. There are a number of small grammatical errors that could be checked. For examples: Page 14 second last paragraph “practitioner’s personal affection as well” is poor choice of words. Missing a verb in the sentence about nursing students from Singapore, and they were “one fifth” on top of page 15, etc.

Thank you very much for drawing attention to the grammatical errors. Since both the reviewers highlighted the English language issues, we decided to send the manuscript to a professional proofreader service before the resubmission. We also changed the “practitioner’s personal affection as well” to the following: “lived experience” and corrected the issue of the missing word as well.

9. In the Discussion I wonder whether the common phenomenon of people wanting to provide socially approved answers, particularly given that the survey is for medical professionals should be considered as a factor for discussion. The authors do talk confidently about “unequivocal demonstration of a positive attitude.” This is a worthwhile in any survey to consider, even if done anonymously.

Thank you very much for the important comment. We totally agree with the necessity to discuss this phenomenon. Based on your suggestion, we have added the following to the discussion section to raise awareness of this:

“It should be taken into consideration that investigating stigmatizing views is challenging because the unequivocal demonstration of a positive attitude cannot be disregarded in interviews, especially in self-reported scales. This study aimed to gather information on what psychiatrists think about their attitudes, which could also be biased; however, it is still a less studied area in the broad literature.”

10. One would hope for more in-depth reflections and discussions on why certain findings are the way they are, in addition to the numerical comparisons with other settings such as those in Singapore or Brazil or Bahrain. These comparisons themselves do not give rise to understanding beyond a cross cultural difference that the authors are bringing to light. The explanations about why a group discussion helps to lower stigma is on the right track, but it could be further illuminated on why such contact or discussion would lead to lowering of stigma.

Thank you very much for this excellent comment.

The significant difference between the Hungarian psychiatrists and the Bahreinian mental healthcare workers might appear to stem from the fact that mental health is not prioritized and the resources are scarce in Arabic countries, and people with mental illness experience the compounded disadvantages of poverty and illness stigma according to a study on Arabic families (Dardas et al. 2015). It is also more complicated to discuss because as written that the Bahrainian was a diverse sample of mental healthcare workers.

In Asian cultures like Singapore, mental health stigma might be influenced by traditional beliefs and mindsets, and honor and collectivism are valued highly. Higher levels of collectivism are associated with higher levels of stigma (Papadopoulos et al., 2013). People from Southern Asia seem to fear negative social consequences of disclosure and believe that sharing negative information would cause a burden to others (Chen et al., 2013).

After discussing the cultural differences with the whole research team, we agreed that the discussion of culture is a very important area. However, it cannot be properly done without the involvement of a researcher from the given country to avoid any biases or misunderstanding, since only local researchers can give us a valuable insight in their culture. Therefore, we prefer not to include additional information on the cultural differences.

However, we have added more information about case discussion and Balint groups in both the introduction and the discussion sections based on your important suggestion.

11. Are there theories within mental health stigma that the authors could invoke.? It would be helpful to find a theory that the authors would like to anchor some of their findings rather than relying on statistical correlational results as an explanation in and of itself.

Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have added the text below to contextualize our findings in the stigma theory. Thank you again, this definitely improved the discussion and highlighted the take-home message.

“Everyone contributes to the stigmatization of people with mental health problems. According to Loch and Rössler, psychiatrists who maintain prejudices are at the intermediate level between the macro levelincluding the general public and mass media, and micro level which includes friends, family, and the individual with mental illness as well via self-stigmatization (Gaebel et al., 2017). Our findings are in line with the literature that psychiatrists generally hold positive views towards patients, but they also prefer to keep a suitable social distance from them. Therefore, even though they have more positive attitudes than other healthcare workers and even though psychiatrists have vast knowledge on mental health, they also contribute negatively to the stigma of the disorder in the inner social circle of the patients. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommended that mental health professionals be made aware of their possible prejudices against people with psychiatric problems because such behavior influences the perception of the general public and may contribute negatively to the social acceptance of such people (Crisp et al., 2004).

In accordance with the recommendations, everything that increases awareness and trains the clinician to develop new skills, such as case discussion, psychotherapy could be considered a useful tool in mitigating the stigma in psychiatrists toward patients. Also, since the lived experience with a person with mental health problems is associated with more positive attitudes, education, contact-based education, non-professional personal connection with people with mental illness and skill development are beneficial for psychiatrists.”

12. Last paragraph, page 16, interesting to highlight that psychiatrists who have experienced discrimination have more distance from their patients. Do the authors have some understanding in theory rather than stating that it’s an existing issue that needs to be further addressed?

Thank you so much for raising this question. We have added more detail on this topic in the discussion section mainly focusing on job satisfaction and the exhaustion of clinicians, which result in more stigma toward patients.

“This professional stigma may lead to psychiatrists enacting stigma towards their patients. Associative stigma was linked with depersonalization and emotional exhaustion in a Belgian research study among mental health professionals (Verhaeghe et al., 2012). Stress, less job satisfaction are fertile soil for more negative attitudes towards both colleagues and patients, and it could have a detrimental effect to patient care.”

13. Limitations: the very low response rate, the statistical corrections needed, why were some people not available, what are the reasons behind her low response and why is the sampling method more likely to reach and get responses from the younger individuals, what biases might have these selective samples introduced to the results should all be explored and discussed.

Thank you for requesting additional information for this section, being aware of the limitations is crucial and the readers should be informed appropriately. We have completed the results section with the following:

“It is quite complicated to obtain proper details on the number of practising psychiatrists in Hungary. The response rate was 22% for all psychiatrists (33% for those who work solely in the public health sector) counted based on the estimated number of professionals, which is similar to other studies investigated among psychiatrists (33% and 27.1%) (reference provided). However, the sample could have been larger to be able to generalize findings for Hungary. Secondly, the authors - not counting the supervisors - are members of the Hungarian Association of Psychiatric Trainees; therefore due to our sampling method and regarding the fact that we also contacted colleagues by using social media, we approached mainly young individuals who worked in the public sector. Accordingly, our study population consisted primarily of trainees and young specialists in adult and child psychiatry (54% of the subjects were between 24 and 35 years of age); thus, more experienced practitioners and those who work in private praxis are underrepresented in the study. Therefore, this may limit the generalizability of the results and comparisons to other studies are limited. On the other hand, the sample represents more the ‘next generation’ and young colleagues in the field influencing the future.”

14. Strength of the paper is, as the authors also concluded, that there is a limited number of studies on psychiatrists and issues related to stigma. And it’s a solid study that can be further improved.

Thank you so much for your valuable review of our manuscript, and for providing us with your expertise. Your suggestions are highly appreciated; we have taken into consideration all of the comments and recommendations you raised, they have definitely improved the manuscript and have helped us to provide a much more comprehensive picture to future readers.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 May 2022

Stigma towards mental illness and help-seeking behaviors among adult and child psychiatrists in Hungary: a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-25580R1

Dear Dr. Ori,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stephan Doering, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

2 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-25580R1

Stigma towards mental illness and help-seeking behaviors among adult and child psychiatrists in Hungary: a cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Őri:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Stephan Doering

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE