Ziyan Xu

Self-stigma and suicidality: a longitudinal study.

Mental illness stigma is a source of distress for persons with mental illness. Self-stigma occurs when negative stereotypes are internalized, leading to low self-esteem, shame and hopelessness. Due to its consequences self-stigma may contribute to suicidality and be a modifiable target for suicide prevention. Based on 222 disability pensioners with mental illness we examined whether self-stigma at baseline is associated with suicidal ideation over a 2-year period, controlling for baseline suicidal ideation, symptoms, age and gender. More self-stigma predicted suicidal ideation at baseline and longitudinally. Interventions on different levels to reduce self-stigma could improve suicide prevention.

Stigma and suicidal ideation among young people at risk of psychosis after one year

Suicidality is common among individuals at risk of psychosis. Emerging findings suggest that mental illness stigma contributes to suicidality. However, it is unclear whether stigma variables are associated with suicidality among young people at risk of psychosis. This longitudinal study assessed perceived public stigma and the cognitive appraisal of stigma as a stressor (stigma stress) as predictors of suicidal ideation among individuals at risk of psychosis over the period of one year. One hundred and seventy-two participants between 13 and 35 years of age were included who were at high or ultra-high risk of psychosis or at risk of bipolar disorder. At one-year follow-up, data were available from 73 completers. In multiple logistic regressions an increase of stigma stress (but not of perceived stigma) over one year was significantly associated with suicidal ideation at one-year follow-up, controlling for age, gender, symptoms, comorbid depression and suicidal ideation at baseline. Interventions to reduce public stigma and stigma stress could therefore improve suicide prevention among young people at risk of psychosis.

Mental illness stigma and suicidality: the role of public and individual stigma

AIMS Suicide rates are increased among unemployed individuals and mental illness stigma can contribute to both unemployment and suicidality. Persons with mental illness perceive negative attitudes among the general public and experience discrimination in their everyday life (=public stigma components) potentially leading to self-stigma and anticipated discrimination (=individual stigma components). Previous research found evidence for an association between aspects of mental illness stigma and suicidality, but has not yet clarified the underlying pathways explaining how different stigma components interact and contribute to suicidal ideation. METHOD Public and individual stigma components and their association with suicidal ideation were examined among 227 unemployed persons with mental illness. A path model linking public stigma components (experienced discrimination, perceived stigma) with suicidal ideation, mediated by individual stigma components (anticipated discrimination, self-stigma), was examined using structural equation modelling within Mplus. RESULTS Our sample was equally split in terms of gender, on average 43 years old and about half reported no suicidal ideation during the past 30 days. In bivariate analyses all stigma components were significantly associated with suicidal ideation. In the path model and controlling for symptoms, the association between experienced discrimination and suicidal ideation was fully mediated by anticipated discrimination and self-stigma. Perceived stigmas contribution to suicidal ideation was fully mediated by anticipated discrimination, but not by self-stigma. CONCLUSIONS In general, programmes addressing multiple stigma components seem to be most effective in improving suicide prevention. Besides interventions targeting negative attitudes and discriminating behaviours of the general public, programmes to support persons with mental illness in coping with perceived and experienced stigma could improve suicide prevention. Future studies should test the short- and long-term effects of such interventions on suicidality and further investigate the role of stigma coping (e.g. secrecy) and emotional consequences (e.g. hopelessness and loneliness) for the association between stigma components and suicidality.

Challenging mental health related stigma in China: Systematic review and meta-analysis. II. Interventions among people with mental illness

People with mental illness often face different types of mental illness stigma that may affect their lives, including perceived stigma, self-stigma, harmful coping strategies and poor quality of life. Although anti-stigma interventions for people with mental illness from Western countries have been identified by recent systematic reviews, their efficacy in China is unknown. This review evaluates the efficacy of anti-stigma interventions among people with mental illness in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau. A systematic search of 8 electronic databases in English and Chinese yielded 17 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated wherever possible. Psychoeducation was the most commonly used intervention. SMDs were large and significant for perceived/experienced/anticipated stigma, self-prejudice and coping with stigma, as well as for depression and anxiety symptoms and quality of life. Both Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and psychoeducation had positive effects on perceived/experienced/anticipated stigma. The quality of studies was modest and heterogeneity across studies was high. Anti-stigma interventions demonstrated promise to reduce stigmas negative impact on people with mental illness in China, but more high-quality intervention research is needed.

Challenging mental health related stigma in China: Systematic review and meta-analysis. I. Interventions among the general public

Mental illness stigma is widely endorsed by the general public in China. Evidence-based anti-stigma interventions to reduce public stigma are needed. However, most studies on the efficacy of anti-stigma interventions took place in Western countries and existing Chinese studies were often not included in recent systematic reviews. This review evaluates the efficacy of anti-stigma interventions among the general population in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau. Eight databases in English and Chinese were searched for randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Subgroup analyses compared interventions with and without consumer contact. Standardized mean differences were calculated from eligible studies where possible. We included 9 trials involving 2041 participants. Interventions yielded a small effect on stereotypes reduction and a similar effect on improving mental health literacy. No study assessed discrimination outcomes. Interventions with consumer contact were not superior to those without. There were insufficient data on medium and long term effects. Heterogeneity across studies was moderate. Quality of studies was modest. Further research using rigorous methods is required.

Strategies to Reduce Mental Illness Stigma

As outlined in other chapters of this book, the stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness remain a major burden on people with mental illness, their families, and society. Reducing the stigma and increasing the empowerment and well-being of people with mental illness should therefore be a priority for health services and society in general. In order to achieve these goals, effective anti-stigma strategies and interventions are needed. In this chapter, we will discuss strategies to tackle three types of stigma: public stigma, self-stigma, and structural discrimination. Briefly, public stigma refers to members of the general public endorsing negative stereotypes and discriminating against people with mental illness (Corrigan 2005; Rusch et al. 2005; Thornicroft 2006); self-stigma occurs if people with mental illness internalize negative stereotypes, leading to diminished self-esteem, self-efficacy, and demoralization (Corrigan et al. 2009); and structural discrimination implies rules and regulations in society that intentionally or unintentionally disadvantage stigmatized individuals (Hatzenbuehler and Link 2014); see Chap. 3 for further details. This chapter is based on recent original articles, systematic reviews cited in the relevant sections, as well as previous narrative reviews (Rusch et al. 2011; Rusch and Corrigan 2012; Thornicroft et al. 2015).