Part of the solution yet part of the problem: factors of schizophrenia stigma in mental health professionals

Abstract

Background Stigma is highly prejudicial to persons with schizophrenia, their families, the society and the health care system. Mental health professionals (MHP) are considered to be one of the main sources of schizophrenia stigma. Objectives The aim of the study was to identify individual and contextual factors associated with stigma in MHP in its three dimensions (stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, Fiske, 1998). Methods An online survey was conducted with specific measures of MHP stigma (stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination). Four categories of potential associated factors were also measured: sociodemographic characteristics, contextual characteristics (e.g., Work setting), individual characteristics (e.g., Profession, Recovery-oriented practices) and theoretical beliefs (e.g., Biological beliefs, Perceived similarities, Continuum versus Categorical beliefs). Results Responses of 357 MHP were analysed. Factors that were the most strongly associated with MHP stigma were Perceived similarities, Categorical beliefs, Biological beliefs, Recovery-oriented practice and Work setting (independent practice). Conversely, Gender, Specific trainings in stigma or recovery and Cognitive aetiology beliefs showed no association with any of MHP stigma dimension. Remaining factors show associations with a weak effect size. Conclusions The survey results suggest that MHP stigma is more influenced by individual factors such as theoretical beliefs and recovery-oriented practices than contextual factors. These original results provide perspectives for reducing stigma in mental health practices. Key points Mental health professionals (MHP) considering they share similarities with persons with schizophrenia or believing that schizophrenia is not a discrete social category but rather the extreme on a continuum between ‘normal’ and ‘pathologic’ reported less stigmatisation. MHP holding higher professional utility beliefs and using recovery-oriented practice reported fewer stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. Other factors such as age, academic level, contact frequency, familiarity and multidisciplinary practice show associations with a weak effect size.