Is it time to change the approach of mental health stigma campaigns? An experimental investigation of the effect of campaign wording on stigma and help-seeking intentions.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health stigma causes a range of diverse and serious negative sequelae. Anti-stigma campaigns have largely aligned with medical theories and categorical approaches. Such campaigns have produced some improvements, but mental health stigma is still prevalent. The effect of alternative theoretical perspectives on mental health within anti-stigma campaigns has not been tested. Moreover, we do not know their effect on help-seeking intentions.
METHODS: We conducted an online experimental pre-post study comparing the effects of two anti-stigma campaign posters on mental health stigma and help-seeking intentions. One poster adhered to the medical, categorical approach to mental health, whereas the other poster portrayed mental health problems in line with a non-categorical, continuous perspective.
RESULTS: After controlling for familiarity with the campaign poster, country of residence and pre-test scores, we found no significant between-group differences in terms of help-seeking intentions and all stigma attitudes except for danger-related beliefs. That is, those who viewed the non-categorical poster reported an increased perception that people with mental health problems are dangerous. DISCUSSION: Our largely null findings may suggest the equivalence of these posters on stigma and help-seeking intentions but may also reflect the brevity of the intervention. Our findings concerning danger beliefs may reflect a Type I error, the complexities of stigma models, or the adverse effects of increased perceived contact. Further research is needed to test the effects of differing mental health paradigms on stigma and help-seeking intentions over a longer duration.

1. Introduction

Mental health stigma can be defined as a combination of a lack of knowledge, and prejudice and discrimination against those with mental health difficulties [1]. Cognitive models of mental health stigma have identified key attitudes as predictive of discriminatory behaviours. Specifically, increased stigma is associated with perceiving those with mental health problems are dangerous and personally responsible for their symptoms [2-4].

The impacts of mental health stigma on people are significant and wide-reaching, with personal, social and economic repercussions. For example, mental health stigma can impede finances by reducing employability [5], it can worsen symptoms due to delayed help-seeking [6], and it can increase isolation due to fears and experiences of judgement and rejection [2, 7]. Anti-stigma campaigns have therefore tried to reduce public stigma towards people with mental health problems. These campaigns make use of visual representations to portray messages. Images are an effective way of communicating mental health-related information as they are thought to encourage elaborative thinking [8]. One of the largest anti-stigma campaigns is the UK’s “Time to Change” (TTC) programme [9]. TTC was launched in 2009 and evaluations have generally shown incremental improvements in reducing public stigma around mental health with each year of its existence [10-12]. However, interim analysis assessing the relationship between campaign awareness and changes in specific aspects of stigma demonstrate that neither tolerance [10] or prejudice [11] was associated with TTC awareness.

The shortcomings of the TTC may be explained by its inherent alignment with a psychiatric understanding of mental health. That is, the content of TTC campaigns adhered to the ‘medical model’ i.e. that mental health difficulties can be understood and categorised using and symptom thresholds [13]. TTC mirrored this approach in their frequent mention of clinical diagnoses and the delineation of those with and without mental health problems in their primary tagline of “1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem in their lifetime”. Such prevalence statistics describe the number of people with versus without a particular symptom or characteristic [14]–therein implying a categorical perspective of mental health with one person having a mental illness, while the other three do not. The emphasis on categorising people into groups differentiated by having or not having mental health problems creates a sense of “otherness”, which is associated with increased stigma [15, 16]. Thus, the use of categorisation in TTC campaign messaging, although intended to emphasise the commonality of mental health problems, may inadvertently have undermined any potential de-stigmatising effects.

In a recent review, the opposing perspective of a non-categorical approach (also referred to as the continuum approach) was shown to generally be associated with a reduction in mental health stigma [17]. But while this approach may be superior in reducing stigma, it may have some unintended negative consequences. There is some limited literature suggesting that over-normalising mental health problems (i.e. removing any notion of “otherness”) can adversely impact help-seeking [18, 19]. The proposed explanation is that mental distress becomes accepted as a ‘normal’ human experience that does not require any support or intervention. Delayed help-seeking as a consequence of over-normalising can have life or death consequences [20]. Without mental health support, symptoms are likely to be prolonged and get worse [21].

The review by Peter et al. [17] brought together the findings of eight intervention studies, three of which were with members of the public as participants. However, Peter et al. [17] highlights these studies are limited in that they did not manipulate allocation to the intervention message and therefore cannot provide any causal evidence of their impact of non-categorical beliefs on stigma. To our knowledge, there is currently no experimental test of the impact of a categorical versus non-categorical anti-stigma campaign that assesses its impact on both stigma outcomes and help-seeking intentions.

The TTC came to an end in 2021 and mental health stigma is still prevalent, leaving space for a new and improved mental health public stigma campaign. The current study aims to compare the categorical verses non-categorical approaches to anti-stigma messaging with respect to their effects on stigma and help-seeking intentions.

1.1 Research hypotheses

The present study will aim to test the following hypotheses:

After controlling for familiarity, country of residence, and baseline scores, mental health stigma attitudes will be less negative for those who attend to the non-categorical anti-stigma poster.

After controlling for familiarity, country of residence, and baseline scores, help-seeking intentions will be greater for those attending to the categorical anti-stigma poster.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Design

We conducted an online survey with an embedded pre-post Experimental design with two independent groups: categorical versus non-categorical anti-stigma poster. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of these posters using the randomisation function within Qualtrics, aiming for a 1:1 group allocation ratio. This study is reported using the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension guidelines [22].

2.2 Participants

To be eligible to participate in this survey, persons had to self-identify as aged 16 or over, and able to read and write in English. Participants were not limited to a particular country–we therefore controlled for country of residence in our analysis. We produced an advert for the study and posted this across social media channels and online forums, as well as encouraging snowball recruitment.

2.3 Anti-stigma poster

Participants were randomised to view one of two anti-stigma posters: either the categorical poster or the non-categorical poster (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Mental health stigma posters.

The categorical poster aligns with the medical model of mental health whereby good and poor mental health can be clearly delineated with cut-offs that describe the person as either having or not having a diagnosable mental health problem [23, 24]–this poster is akin to the sentiment of the Time to Change campaign [25]. The non-categorical poster moves away from cut-offs and/or diagnostic labels and instead emphasises that we all have mental health and that this is fluctuating and changeable–this poster reflects the message of the “Only Us” campaign [26]. An explanation of how we communicated these differing perspectives on mental health is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Details of how the anti-stigma posters differed between experimental conditions.

Poster Element	Categorical	Non-categorical
People graphic	One of the four people are in a different colour suggesting they have a mental health problem, whereas the other three do not.	All of the people are the same colouring suggesting that no one is different.
Speech bubble	The “1 in 4” suggests that people can either have or do not have a mental health problem i.e. there are cut-offs.	The “all” represents the idea that poor mental health can be experienced by everyone and is not necessarily stable.
Tagline	The use of “them” is intended to reinforce the idea of separation between those who do and those who do not have a mental health problem.	There is no “other” identified here and instead poor mental health can be ubiquitous.

2.4. Measures

2.4.1 Attribution Questionnaire

Mental health stigma attitudes were assessed using the Attribution Questionnaire (AQ) [3]. Other versions of the AQ ask participants about their mental health attitudes in relation to a specific patient vignette [27]. However, we have used the non-specific version of the AQ that asks participants about their attitudes to those with mental health problems more generally [3]. This version of the AQ has 20 items and can be divided into seven subscales that each reflect a different attitude: (1) personal responsibility: perception of how much control the person has over their mental health; (2) pity: how much sympathy they have towards people with mental health problems; (3) helping behaviour: willingness to help people with mental health problems; (4) anger: how angry they feel towards people with mental health problems; (5) dangerousness: the perception of how much threat people with mental health problems pose to them; (6) fear: how afraid they are of people with mental health problems; (7) avoidance: how much they want to avoid people with mental health problems. The seven-factor structure was found to have statistically significant good model fit (p < .001).

2.4.2 Inventory of Attitudes towards Seeking Mental Health Services (IASMHS)

The Inventory of Attitudes towards Seeking Mental Health Services (IASMHS) [28] is a 24 item questionnaire measuring the extent to which persons would seek help if they were to experience a mental health problem. The IASMHS is comprised of three sub-scales: (1) psychological openness: how open a person would be to discussing their emotions; (2) help-seeking propensity: willingness to seek help generally, and (3) indifference to stigma: whether fear of stigma will prevent help-seeking. Participants rated their agreement with statements using a Likert scale from 0 (disagree) to 4 (agree). The subscales can also be totalled to give an overall score of attitudes towards seeking mental health help. All of the subscales and scale total were found to have good reliability (αs ≥ .76) in both the original study [28], and in a subsequent re-evaluation of the IASMHS [29].

2.4.3 Familiarity

The posters were based on existing mental health campaign posters. To enable us to control for familiarity with the posters, we included a one-item visual analogue scale. Participants rated their familiarity with the poster from 0 –“totally unfamiliar, I have never seen it before”, to 100 –“totally familiar, I have definitely seen it before”.

2.4.4 Attention checks

We ensured that participants had attended to the poster by asking them three multiple choice questions testing their knowledge of the poster content. We asked participants: (1) According to the poster, how many people are affected by mental health problems during their lifetime?; (2) Select the word that is missing from this caption found on the image above: “Let’s be there for [blank]”; and, (3) What does this image want you to do to help reduce mental health stigma?.

2.5 Procedure

After providing consent and completing demographic questions, participants were asked to complete the aforementioned measures of mental health stigma attitudes and help-seeking intentions (T0 assessment). Participants were then randomised to view one of the anti-stigma posters and complete the attention check questions. Participants were randomised using the ‘randomise’ function within Qualtrics with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Participants were then asked to complete the same mental health stigma attitudes and help-seeking intentions questionnaires (T1 assessment). Participants were finally presented with a debrief statement and given the opportunity to enter a prize draw to win one of five £20 prizes.

2.6 Analysis plan

Participants who did not correctly answer the attention check questions were excluded from the analysis. To test the research hypotheses, we conducted a one-way MANCOVA where familiarity with the poster, a dummy variable for country of residence (UK versus rest of the world), and T0 AQ subscales [3] and IASMHS subscales and scale total [28] scores were entered as covariates. The type of anti-stigma poster (categorical versus non-categorical) was entered as the independent variable, and the T1 AQ subscales [3] and IASMHS subscales and scale total [28] were entered as dependent variables. We report the Pillai’s Trace effect size.

2.7 Ethics

This study received ethical approval as part of a larger online mental health survey from the University of Sussex Research Ethics Committee (reference: ER/CH283/8). Participants provided online informed consent by completing a tick box form.

3 Results

3.1 Sample characteristics

A total of 1,570 participants completed the consent statement and provided some demographic information. After removing those who did not view the anti-stigma poster or correctly complete the attention check, this left a final sample of 1,046 participants (Fig 2).

Fig 2

CONSORT diagram.

Our sample was largely female, White British, living in the United Kingdom, employed, and with an academic qualification (see Table 2).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics and research data.

				Categorical		Non-categorical		All
			n	M(SD) or n(%)	n	M(SD) or n(%)	n	M(SD) or n(%)
Sample characteristics
	Age M(SD)		531	32.30(12.62)	515	32.76(13.10)	1046	32.53(12.86)
	Gender n(%)
		Male		102(19.2)		111(21.6)		213(20.4)
		Female		419(78.9)		393(76.3)		812(77.6)
		Other		8(1.5)		9(1.8)		17(1.6)
		Prefer not to say		2(0.4)		2(0.4)		4(0.4)
	Ethnicity n(%)		531		515		1046
		White British or White other		464(87.4)		453(88.0)		917(87.6)
		Black British or Black other		7(1.3)		7(1.4)		14(1.4)
		Asian British or Asian other		21(3.9)		14(2.8)		35(3.4)
		Indian British or Indian other		10(1.9)		14(2.7)		24(2.3)
		Mixed ethnicity		21(4.0)		22(4.3)		43(4.1)
		Prefer not to say		8(1.5)		5(1.0)		13(1.2)
	Country of birth n(%)		531		515		1046
		England		313(58.9)		311(60.4)		624(59.7)
		Scotland		32(6.0)		27(5.2)		59(5.6)
		Wales		7(1.3)		12(2.3)		19(1.8)
		Northern Ireland		7(1.3)		3(0.6)		10(1.0)
		Republic of Ireland		9(1.7)		6(1.2)		15(1.4)
		Elsewhere		163(30.7)		156(30.3)		319(30.5)
	First language n(%)		531		515		1046
		English		447(84.2)		446(86.6)		893(85.4)
		Not English		59(11.1)		47(9.1)		106(10.1)
		Bilingual from birth		25(4.7)		21(4.1)		46(4.4)
		Prefer not to say		0(0)		1(0.2)		1(0.1)
	Marital status n(%)		531		515		1046
		Single		209(39.4)		212(41.2)		421(40.2)
		Married, civil partnership, cohabiting or in a relationship		288(54.3)		271(52.6)		559(53.4)
		Divorced or separated		25(4.7)		25(4.9)		50(4.8)
		Widowed		5(0.9)		2(0.4)		7(0.7)
		Prefer not to say		4(0.8)		5(1.0)		9(0.9)
	Sexual orientation n(%)		531		515		1046
		Heterosexual or straight		422(79.5)		389(75.5)		811(77.5)
		Homosexual or gay		22(4.2)		27(5.2)		49(4.7)
		Bisexual		59(11.1)		55(10.7)		114(10.9)
		Other		10(1.9)		16(3.1)		26(2.5)
		Unsure		11(2.1)		18(3.5)		29(2.8)
		Prefer not to say		7(1.3)		10(1.9)		17(1.6)
	Employment status n(%)		531		515		1046
		Employed (paid)		270(50.8)		255(49.5)		525(50.2)
		Employed (voluntary)		7(1.3)		6(1.2)		13(1.2)
		Student		193(36.3)		191(37.1)		384(36.7)
		Homemaker		16(3.0)		25(4.9)		41(3.9)
		Unemployed		36(6.8)		29(5.6)		65(6.2)
		Prefer not to say		9(1.7)		9(1.7)		18(1.7)
	Highest qualification n(%)		531		515		1046
		No qualification		15(2.8)		10(1.9)		25(2.4)
		GCSE or equivalent		28(5.3)		35(6.8)		63(6.0)
		A level or equivalent		128(24.1)		139(27.0)		267(25.5)
		Undergraduate degree or equivalent		198(37.3)		179(34.8)		377(36.0)
		Postgraduate degree or equivalent		124(23.4)		126(24.5)		250(23.9)
		Doctoral degree or equivalent		26(4.9)		20(3.9)		46(4.4)
		Prefer not to say		12(2.3)		6(1.2)		18(1.7)
AQ
	Personal responsibility		494	2.06(1.26)	465	2.13(1.36)	959	2.09(1.31)
	Pity		494	1.79(1.02)	465	1.81(1.11)	959	1.80(1.06)
	Helping behaviour		494	2.10(1.29)	465	2.12(1.33)	959	2.11(1.31)
	Anger		494	3.32(1.26)	465	3.34(1.33)	959	3.33(1.29)
	Dangerousness		494	7.13(1.68)	465	7.27(1.50)	959	7.20(1.60)
	Fear		494	3.58(1.12)	465	3.59(1.16)	959	3.58(1.14)
	Avoidance		494	5.63(1.32)	465	5.62(1.07)	959	5.63(1.20)
IASMHS
	Total		494	1.82(0.45)	465	1.82(0.40)	959	1.82(0.43)
	Psychological openness		494	1.12(0.80)	465	1.09(0.76)	959	1.11(0.78)
	Help-seeking propensity		494	3.01(0.86)	465	3.02(0.80)	959	3.02(0.83)
	Indifference to stigma		494	1.32(0.86)	465	1.34(0.83)	959	1.33(0.85)

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; AQ = Attribution Questionnaire (Corrigan et al., 2002); IASMHS = Inventory of Attitudes towards Seeking Mental Health Support [28].

3.2 Overall model

After controlling for covariates, there was no significant difference between those participants who viewed the categorical versus non-categorical stigma poster on a composite of all the stigma and help-seeking scales and subscales (F(12, 932) = 0.86, p = .59; V = .01).

3.3 Mental health stigma

After controlling for covariates, there was no significant difference between the categorical and non-categorical poster groups in terms of the personal responsibility (F(1, 943) = 0.001, p = .97), pity (F(1, 943) = 0.08, p = .78), anger (F(1, 943) = 0.70, p = .40), helping behaviour (F(1, 943) = 0.03, p = .87), fear (F(1, 943) = 0.30, p = .58), or avoidance (F(1, 943) = <0.001, p = 1.00) subscales. There was a significant group effect on danger-related attitudes (F(1, 943) = 5.15, p = .02), whereby those who viewed the non-categorical poster reported a great belief that people with mental health problems were dangerous than those who viewed the categorical poster.

3.4 Help-seeking intentions

After controlling for covariates, there was no significant difference between the participants who viewed the categorical versus the non-categorical poster on the IASMHS scale total (F(1, 943) = 0.01, p = .92), or psychological openness (F(1, 943) = 1.12, p = .29), help-seeking propensity (F(1, 943) = 0.20, p = .66), and indifference to stigma (F(1, 943) = 0.04, p = .84) subscales.

4 Discussion

The aim of our study was to compare the effects of two mental health anti-stigma posters on self-reported stigma and help-seeking intentions for mental health difficulties. The two posters adopted differing approaches to the conceptualisation of mental health problems: one adopting a categorical perspective and the other a non-categorical perspective. We found that there was no difference between the two groups in terms of a composite measure of stigma and help-seeking intentions derived via a MANOVA, help-seeking intentions alone, or most of the mental health stigma attitudes assessed here. The only construct where the two groups differed were danger related beliefs. Contrary to our hypotheses, viewing the non-categorical poster was associated with increased endorsement that people with mental health problems are dangerous.

Largely we found there were no differences between our two groups in terms of stigma or help-seeking intentions. The null findings may suggest the posters have equivalent effects but may also reflect the brevity of our intervention. Participants only viewed the campaign poster for a short amount of time–just long enough to answer the attention check questions. Similarly, another brief anti-stigma campaign was found to have limited efficacy, producing improvements only on knowledge-related outcomes [30]. To produce any changes on attitudinal (e.g., beliefs about people with mental health problems) or behavioural (e.g., help-seeking intentions) outcomes is likely to require a longer-term intervention.

One variable that we did find a significant between-group difference on were danger-related beliefs. The literature largely criticises anti-stigma campaigns for promoting “otherness” by portraying those with mental health difficulties as different [31]. Instead, those that adopt a recovery-orientated approach and advocate inclusiveness are thought to be the most effective and acceptable campaigns [32]. Our findings perhaps contradict this message, as we found danger-related attitudes were increased in those that viewed the non-categorical poster. Given all other results were non-significant, we believe this result is likely to be artefact, reflecting a Type I error. Potentially though, our results might be explained by the complexities and nuances of how mental health paradigms, stigma, and help-seeking are defined and the relationships between these constructs. For example, while believing people with mental health problems are dangerous and blameworthy are both stigmatising attitudes, their effects on help-seeking are distinct. The former of these attitudes (danger beliefs) is associated with increased help-seeking while the latter (personal responsibility beliefs) is associated with reduced help-seeking [33]. It is therefore possible that mental health stigma campaigns may produce effects on individual stigmatising attitudes. Assuming this is correct, the present non-categorical poster may have had a specific impact on fear-related beliefs by enhancing the perceived proximity of those with mental health problems. That is, people with mental health problems are not “other” but are instead part of their in-group. Being ‘close’ to someone with mental health problems may therefore specifically increase the perceived likelihood of threat resulting in increased fear [34]. Our results here may reflect the adverse consequences of contact on specific mental health related attitudes.

4.1 Limitations

A limitation of our experimental manipulation is the brevity of participants’ exposure to the anti-stigma campaigns. Participants were required to attend to the poster only for long enough to complete the attention checks correctly. Our assessment of stigma is also limited in that the version of the Attribution Questionnaire (AQ) [3] used here does not consider the heterogeneity of mental health problems. Self-reported stigma varies in relation to the presence and nature of a clinical diagnosis [35], therefore calling into question the utility of non-specific measures of mental health stigma like that used here. For example, studies suggest that a ‘hierarchy’ of stigma exists for psychiatric conditions [36], with certain ‘labels,’ such as schizophrenia, generally more feared and stigmatized than others such as depression [37]. Further issues related to our method of measurement is that the wording of the AQ may have tainted our experimental manipulation–especially for the non-categorical poster arm. The language used in the AQ may have subtly communicated an alignment with the categorical approach i.e. referring to people with mental health problems, suggesting an “otherness”. Participants completing this questionnaire in the non-categorical arm will have viewed potentially contradictory ideas and the impact of this on their responses cannot be fully determined. Addressing this in future research studies will be a challenge for researchers who must consider ways of measuring endorsement of competing ideologies using neutral language. Implications:

Our null findings mean we cannot offer any suggestion as to which approach, categorical or non-categorical, is most effective at reducing mental health stigma and encouraging help-seeking when needed. Previous literature suggests a superiority of the non-categorical (continuum) approach, but these intervention studies are limited by their use of cross-sectional rather than experimental designs [17]. We therefore do not yet know if there is an approach to anti-stigma campaigns that can surpass the gains achieved by the Time to Change approach. As this question remains unanswered, we assert that an experimental test assessing the effectiveness of opposing mental health stigma campaigns is still very much needed. However, such a test needs to assess the effectiveness of these campaigns over a prolonged period of time. We also recommend that further research in this area should take into consideration the heterogeneous nature of mental health difficulties–in terms of both the content of anti-stigma campaigns and measures to assess their effectiveness. On reflection, it is unlikely that such a simple intervention is likely to bring about significant and sustained changes in a construct as complex and multifaceted as stigma. Negative depictions of mental health have been prevalent for a long period of time [38] and are embedded in mainstream media (e.g. newspapers and magazines [39] and television [40]). Ultimately, it is more probable that a successful stigma campaign will require a multipronged approach that offers a degree of personalisation in terms of the type of mental health problem and the context.

5 Conclusion

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two posters that adhere to two different theoretical perspectives of mental health on mental health stigma and help-seeking intentions. Contrary to our hypotheses, we found no significant difference between the posters on all variables bar danger-related beliefs; however, this result is likely a Type I error. To establish which approach is best for future mental health stigma campaigns, further experimental studies are needed that evaluate campaigns that involve longer term exposure to the messaging.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

2 May 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,

Naoki Yoshinaga

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Additional Editor Comments:

According to the journal's guideline, the authors need to conform to appropriate reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT for this study): https://www.equator-network.

Please also consider providing the relevant checklist as a supporting information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: Yes

**********

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: No

**********

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: Yes

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: Overall this is a well written paper on an important topic. The language is accessible and clear throughout. I’ve made a couple suggestions for how the authors may like to develop the paper, but these really are suggestions rather than requests. Thank you, it was a pleasure to read your paper. I recommend it’s publication.

Abstract:

The abstract is provides a clear description of the need for research, the methods used, the results found, and possible interpretations. At the moment the abstract is long and might benefit from being condensed to key points.

Introduction:

Excellent description of the need to challenge mental health-related stigma, current dominant strategies (e.g. TTC campaign), and the potential for advancing alternative approaches.

The paper, and subsequent research hypotheses, would benefit from engaging with theories of health communication to explain the theoretical model (e.g. Theory of planned behaviour; health belief model; social representations theory etc) by which visual communication is considered to influence individual attitudes.

Clear description of research hypotheses

Methods:

Clear description of research design, participants, and posters. Measures are well described and relevant. Clear account of analysis plan; relevant choice of MANCOVA for addressing increased Type I error

Results:

Clear descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics and research data; and researchers effectively control for covariates.

Discussion:

Clear interpretation of the results.

Slight issues with wording on line 230: researchers states “The null findings may suggest the posters have equivalent effects, but are likely a result of the brevity of our intervention” as this statement was not directly evidenced, it might be more approach to say “may reflect the brevity” rather than “likely”.

Interesting and balanced discussion of the ‘fear effect’. These is some research e.g. Thibodeau & Peterson (2018) that continuum-belief interventions to increase participants experiences of anxiety and threat. There is also evidence e.g. Foster, 2001; Walsh & Foster, 2020 that perceiving the Other as relevant to the Self is experienced as threatening for one’s social identity (and empowered position in the moral order).

Implications:

To support the statement on line 275 - 277: “On reflection, it is unlikely that such a simple intervention is likely to bring about significant and sustained changes in a construct as complex and multifaceted as stigma” It might be worth also highlighting that representations of mental health problems are historically tenacious (Jodelet, 1991) and very much embedded in institutions (e.g. the media) (Rose, 1998).

Reviewer #2: Introduction

The summary of the impact of Time to Change is based on results published part way into the campaign, which finished in 2021. For the results published towards the end ie after more changes had accrued, see

Henderson C, Potts L, Robinson EJ. Mental illness stigma after a decade of Time to Change England: inequalities as targets for further improvement. European Journal of Public Health, 30 (3): 526–532, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa013, 2020.

The discussion about a categorical vs noncategorial approach needs more work. First, emphasising the prevalence of mental health problems is a way to normalise them and raise people’s awareness of common mental disorder, the symptoms of which are at the severe end of experiences that everyone has at some point, therefore the use of a prevalence message is not purely in opposition to a noncategorical one. Second, the body of work by Georg Schomerus and others on the continuum model is entirely neglected; instead the hypotheses are presented as though no one had tested them before.

Methods

As this is an online RCT I recommend the use of the online RCT extension of the Consort reporting guidance, including a consort flow diagram.

The categorical poster description of diagnosis/problem appears to assume that these are synonymous in people’s minds. This is not the case- many people think of nondiagnostic issues as mental health problems. This is something that increased over Time to Change, the evaluation of which included assessment of whether people think of grief and stress as mental health problems.

The AQ ask about people with mental health problems, implying a categorical attitude. Is this a problem for measurement of the impact of the noncategorical poster?

Discussion

Given the evidence cited for the lack of impact of short term campaigns on the outcomes of interest it is not clear what the rationale for the current study was.

The implications section again ignores the existing body of work on the continuum model. How does the current study build on the work of Schomerus et al? Without such contextualisation and given the likely effect of a high prevalence message on reducing othering it is hard to see what this study adds.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Daniel Walsh

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Claire Henderson

[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.

28 Jun 2022

We have attached our response to the reviewers as a cover letter. The unformatted version of the cover letter is copied and pasted here also:

Manuscript Title: Is it time to change the approach of mental health stigma campaigns? An experimental investigation of the effect of campaign wording on stigma and help-seeking intentions.

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and important comments. We are pleased to have the opportunity to revise our paper in light of their feedback. We have made changes to our manuscript using tracked changes. Our response letter is formatted with the reviewers’ comments given in bold, our response in normal typeface, and where needed, extracts from the paper italicised.

EDITOR COMMENTS:

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

We have reviewed the guidance and have updated the manuscript to adhere to this guidance.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

We have included a statement to the ethics section of the method describing how consent was taken:

Participants provided online informed consent by completing a tick box form.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b. If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

c. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

We are happy to share the minimal anonymised data set from this study. Thank you for updating the data availability statement as required.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

The corresponding author has an ORCID iD that can be attached to this submission: 0000-0001-58689902; however, I have been unable to do this when submitting and resubmitting the paper. I receive an error message each time I try to connect the ORCID iD. Any assistance you can provide in fixing this would be appreciated.

5. According to the journal's guideline, the authors need to conform to appropriate reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT for this study): https://www.equator-network.

This paper has been written in line with the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension guidelines. This has been included in the methods section.

REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS:

6. Overall this is a well written paper on an important topic. The language is accessible and clear throughout. I’ve made a couple suggestions for how the authors may like to develop the paper, but these really are suggestions rather than requests. Thank you, it was a pleasure to read your paper. I recommend it’s publication.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments about our paper.

7. Abstract: The abstract is provides a clear description of the need for research, the methods used, the results found, and possible interpretations. At the moment the abstract is long and might benefit from being condensed to key points.

We have now revised the abstract to reduce its length. The abstract is now below 250 words.

8. Introduction: Excellent description of the need to challenge mental health-related stigma, current dominant strategies (e.g. TTC campaign), and the potential for advancing alternative approaches.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments about our paper.

9. Introduction: The paper, and subsequent research hypotheses, would benefit from engaging with theories of health communication to explain the theoretical model (e.g. Theory of planned behaviour; health belief model; social representations theory etc) by which visual communication is considered to influence individual attitudes.

We have included a sentence to the introduction to give a theoretical basis for the use of poster in anti-stigma campaigns:

Anti-stigma campaigns have therefore tried to reduce public stigma towards people with mental health problems. These campaigns make use of visual representations to portray messages. Images are an effective way of communicating mental health-related information as they are thought to encourage elaborative thinking (Lazard et al., 2016).

10. Methods: Clear description of research design, participants, and posters. Measures are well described and relevant. Clear account of analysis plan; relevant choice of MANCOVA for addressing increased Type I error.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments about our paper.

11. Results: Clear descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics and research data; and researchers effectively control for covariates.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments about our paper.

12. Discussion: Slight issues with wording on line 230: researchers states “The null findings may suggest the posters have equivalent effects, but are likely a result of the brevity of our intervention” as this statement was not directly evidenced, it might be more approach to say “may reflect the brevity” rather than “likely”.

We have amended the wording as follows:

The null findings may suggest the posters have equivalent effects, but may also reflect the brevity of our intervention.

13. Discussion: Interesting and balanced discussion of the ‘fear effect’. These is some research e.g. Thibodeau & Peterson (2018) that continuum-belief interventions to increase participants experiences of anxiety and threat. There is also evidence e.g. Foster, 2001; Walsh & Foster, 2020 that perceiving the Other as relevant to the Self is experienced as threatening for one’s social identity (and empowered position in the moral order).

We have amended this section of the discussion to include some of the literature described by the reviewer:

For example, while believing people with mental health problems are dangerous and blameworthy are both stigmatising attitudes, their effects on help-seeking are distinct. The former of these attitudes (danger beliefs) is associated with increased help-seeking while the latter (personal responsibility beliefs) is associated with reduced help-seeking (Mojtabai, 2010). It is therefore possible that mental health stigma campaigns may produce effects on individual stigmatising attitudes. Assuming this is correct, the present non-categorical poster may have had a specific impact on fear-related beliefs by enhancing the perceived proximity of those with mental health problems. That is, people with mental health problems are not “other” but are instead part of their in-group. Being ‘close’ to someone with mental health problems may therefore specifically increase the perceived likelihood of threat resulting in increased fear (Thibodeau & Peterson, 2018). Our results here may reflect the adverse consequences of contact on specific mental health related attitudes.

14. Implications: To support the statement on line 275 - 277: “On reflection, it is unlikely that such a simple intervention is likely to bring about significant and sustained changes in a construct as complex and multifaceted as stigma” It might be worth also highlighting that representations of mental health problems are historically tenacious (Jodelet, 1991) and very much embedded in institutions (e.g. the media) (Rose, 1998).

We have added a sentence to the discussion to reflect on the longstanding and pervasive nature of mental health stigma:

On reflection, it is unlikely that such a simple intervention is likely to bring about significant and sustained changes in a construct as complex and multifaceted as stigma. Negative depictions of mental health have been prevalent for a long period of time (Schomerus & Angermeye, 2017) and are embedded both implicitly and explicitly in mainstream media (e.g. newspapers and magazines (Nawková et al., 2012) and television (Henderson, 2018)).

REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS:

15. Introduction: The summary of the impact of Time to Change is based on results published part way into the campaign, which finished in 2021. For the results published towards the end ie after more changes had accrued, see Henderson C, Potts L, Robinson EJ. Mental illness stigma after a decade of Time to Change England: inequalities as targets for further improvement. European Journal of Public Health, 30 (3): 526–532, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa013, 2020.

Thank you to the reviewer for highlighting this reference. We have added it to our introduction:

TTC was launched in 2009 and evaluations have generally shown incremental improvements in reducing public stigma around mental health with each year of its existence (Evans-Lacko et al., 2014; Henderson et al., 2020; Sampogna et al., 2017).

16. Introduction: The discussion about a categorical vs noncategorial approach needs more work. First, emphasising the prevalence of mental health problems is a way to normalise them and raise people’s awareness of common mental disorder, the symptoms of which are at the severe end of experiences that everyone has at some point, therefore the use of a prevalence message is not purely in opposition to a noncategorical one.

We appreciate that prevalence statistics and the categorical approach to mental health are not necessarily interchangeable. We have included further information about how we do believe in this instance the “1 in 4” message does communicate a categorical understanding of mental health problems:

TTC mirrored this approach in their frequent mention of clinical diagnoses and the delineation of those with and without mental health problems in their primary tagline of “1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem in their lifetime”. Such prevalence statistics describe the number of people with versus without a particular symptom or characteristic (National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 2022) – therein implying a categorical perspective of mental health with one person having a mental illness, while the other three do not.

17. Second, the body of work by Georg Schomerus and others on the continuum model is entirely neglected; instead the hypotheses are presented as though no one had tested them before.

We have added references to the work of Georg Schomerus and colleagues within the introduction and used the latest work from this group to help put our study into context:

In a recent review, the opposing perspective of a non-categorical approach (also referred to as the continuum approach) was shown to generally be associated with a reduction in mental health stigma (Peter et al., 2021). But while this approach may be superior in reducing stigma, it may have some unintended negative consequences. There is some limited literature suggesting that over-normalising mental health problems (i.e. removing any notion of “otherness”) can adversely impact help-seeking (Biddle et al., 2007; Fernandez et al., 2022).

We also referred to this work in order to establish the rationale for our project:

The review by Peter et al. (2021) brought together the findings of 8 intervention studies, three of which were with members of the public. However, Peter et al. (2021) highlights these studies are limited in that they did not manipulate the intervention message and therefore cannot provide any causal evidence of their impact of non-categorical beliefs on stigma. To our knowledge, there is currently no experimental test of the impact of a categorical versus non-categorical anti-stigma campaign that assesses its impact on both stigma and help-seeking outcomes.

18. Methods: As this is an online RCT I recommend the use of the online RCT extension of the Consort reporting guidance, including a consort flow diagram.

Based on a search of the EQUATOR network guidelines, we have decided to use the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension guidelines as this is the best fit for experimental studies in the area of psychology.

19. Method: The categorical poster description of diagnosis/problem appears to assume that these are synonymous in people’s minds. This is not the case- many people think of nondiagnostic issues as mental health problems. This is something that increased over Time to Change, the evaluation of which included assessment of whether people think of grief and stress as mental health problems.

We have made some changes to the wording in how we describe the posters to make it clear that the categorical approach refers to there being a boundary delineating good and poor mental health, and that this may, but not necessarily, reflect the presence and absence of a psychiatric diagnosis:

The categorical poster aligns with the medical model of mental health whereby good and poor mental health can be clearly delineated with cut-offs that describe the person as either having or not having a diagnosable mental health problem (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; World Health Organisation (WHO), 1992)… The non-categorical poster moves away from cut-offs and/or diagnostic labels and instead emphasises that we all have mental health and that this is fluctuating and changeable.

20. Method: The AQ ask about people with mental health problems, implying a categorical attitude. Is this a problem for measurement of the impact of the noncategorical poster?

Thank you for raising this issue. We have acknowledged this within our limitations:

Further issues related to our method of measurement is that the wording of the AQ may have tainted our experimental manipulation – especially for the non-categorical poster arm. The language used in the AQ may have subtly communicated an alignment with the categorical approach i.e. referring to people with mental health problems, suggesting an “otherness”. Participants completing this questionnaire in the non-categorical arm will have viewed potentially contradictory ideas and the impact of this on their responses cannot be fully determined. Addressing this in future research studies will be a challenge for researchers who must consider ways of measuring endorsement of competing ideologies using neutral language.

21. Discussion: Given the evidence cited for the lack of impact of short-term campaigns on the outcomes of interest it is not clear what the rationale for the current study was.

We included additional text in the introduction that sets out the rationale for this project.

The review by Peter et al. (2021) brought together the findings of eight intervention studies, three of which were with members of the public. However, Peter et al. (2021) highlights these studies are limited in that they did not manipulate the intervention message and therefore cannot provide any causal evidence of their impact of non-categorical beliefs on stigma. To our knowledge, there is currently no experimental test of the impact of a categorical versus non-categorical anti-stigma campaign that assesses its impact on both stigma and help-seeking outcomes.

We acknowledge that short term anti-stigma campaigns have limited effectiveness but as this type of study had not been done before (i.e. an experimental test of categorical versus non-categorical anti-stigma campaigns that assess the impact on both stigma and help-seeking outcomes) we felt that using brief campaigns was most appropriate for this initial test of our hypotheses. We acknowledge the issues with brief anti-stigma campaigns in our discussion.

22. The implications section again ignores the existing body of work on the continuum model. How does the current study build on the work of Schomerus et al? Without such contextualisation and given the likely effect of a high prevalence message on reducing othering it is hard to see what this study adds.

We have amended the implications section of the discussion to make mention of the work of Schomerus and colleagues.

Our null findings mean we cannot offer any suggestion as to which approach, categorical or non-categorical, is most effective at reducing mental health stigma and encouraging help-seeking when needed. Previous literature suggests a superiority of the non-categorical (continuum) approach, but these intervention studies are limited by their use of cross-sectional rather than experimental designs (Peter et al., 2021). We therefore do not yet know if there is an approach to anti-stigma campaigns that can surpass the gains achieved by the Time to Change approach.

We thank the reviewers for taking the time to review our paper and for offering constructive comments to strengthen it. Please do not hesitate to contact a member of our team if any of the points require further clarification.

Best wishes,

Dr Cassie M Hazell (on behalf of the wider research team).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jul 2022

3 Aug 2022

Manuscript Title: Is it time to change the approach of mental health stigma campaigns? An experimental investigation of the effect of campaign wording on stigma and help-seeking intentions.

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and important comments. We are pleased to have the opportunity to revise our paper in light of their feedback. We have made changes to our manuscript using tracked changes. Our response letter is formatted with the reviewers’ comments given in bold, our response in normal typeface, and where needed, extracts from the paper italicised.

REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS:

1. I recommend it's publication. It is a well written article on an important topic. It was already of a high quality. The authors responded diligently to both my and the other reviewer’s comments. It was a pleasure to review.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind comments about our paper.

REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS:

2. Regarding the authors' response: “To our knowledge, there is currently no experimental test of the impact of a categorical versus non-categorical anti-stigma campaign that assesses its impact on both stigma and help-seeking outcomes.” The authors did not assess help seeking outcomes. The abstract begins accurately by using the term help seeking intentions, and then changes to help seeking outcomes. Please correct this. Once this is accurate, the rather minimal difference in outcomes used between this study and doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.11.006 becomes apparent; the overemphasis of the novelty of the study then still needs to be addressed.

We respect the feedback from the reviewer and appreciate the opportunity to improve our paper. The use of ‘help-seeking outcomes’ to describe our dependent variable is inappropriate and we have revised all instance of this to ‘help-seeking intentions’.

With regard to the novelty of our paper, we do agree that there are similarities with the paper by Schomerus et al. (2016). Both papers are comparing continuum versus dichotomous approaches to mental health on mental health on mental health stigma. We do however posit that our paper is distinct from the work by Schomerus et al. (2016) in that we also assessed help-seeking intentions. The paper by Schomerus et al. (2016) does not assess this construct (the measures included are the Social Distance Scale, continuum and difference beliefs, and stereotype endorsement). We would therefore like to request that the current rationale remains as presented in the revised version of the manuscript.

We thank the reviewers for taking the time to review our paper and for offering constructive comments to strengthen it. Please do not hesitate to contact a member of our team if any of the points require further clarification.

Best wishes,

Dr Cassie M Hazell (on behalf of the wider research team).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 19.07.2022.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Aug 2022

Is it time to change the approach of mental health stigma campaigns? An experimental investigation of the effect of campaign wording on stigma and help-seeking intentions.

PONE-D-22-07331R2

Dear Dr. Hazell,

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,

Naoki Yoshinaga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: no further comments.................................................................................

**********

7. 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 #2: Yes: Claire Henderson

**********

9 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-07331R2

Is it time to change the approach of mental health stigma campaigns? An experimental investigation of the effect of campaign wording on stigma and help-seeking intentions.

Dear Dr. Hazell:

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

Prof. Naoki Yoshinaga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE