Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Evaluation of attitudes and knowledge toward mental disorders in a sample of the Chinese population using a web-based approach

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1, 3,
  • 1, 4 and
  • 1, 2, 3, 4Email author
BMC Psychiatry201818:367

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1949-7

  • Received: 23 March 2018
  • Accepted: 2 November 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

People with mental disorders often encounter stigmatizing attitudes related to their conditions. Stigma often represents one of the critical obstacles that stand in the way of delivering mental health care. The main aim of the study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward mental disorders in a sample of the Chinese population; furthermore, we also aimed to identify and explore the socio-demographic characteristics associated with specific knowledge and attitudes towards psychiatric disorders.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was created and delivered through an Internet chat application over the period June–December 2017. The Mental Health Knowledge Questionnaire and the Perceived Devaluation and Discrimination Scale were used to evaluate the participants’ mental health knowledge and attitudes toward mental disorders.

Results

A total of 1087 participants were recruited in for our survey. The mean score of the MHKQ and PDD were (15.89 ± 2.69) and (33.77 ± 6.66), respectively. Univariate analyses showed that young people and rural residents tended to show more positive attitudes toward mental disorders with respect to older people and urban residents (P < 0.05). People with higher education levels, those who had contact with people with mental disorders, and those who learned about mental disorders by personal encounter resulted to have had higher MHKQ scores (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

In our sample of the Chinese population, negative attitudes toward mental disorders were often reported. General education programs may not be an effective way to decrease stigma, while anti-stigma campaigns targeted for specific groups, such as urban residents and the older people, should be carried out in the future in China.

Keywords

  • Mental health knowledge
  • Stigma
  • Discrimination
  • Mental disorders
  • China

Background

Although there are now a variety of effective treatments for mental disorders, still a significant number of people do not receive proper treatment for mental disorders [1]. Even those who receive care and assistance from mental health services often tend to exhibit a significant delay between symptoms’ onset and seeking treatment and this can exacerbate their conditions and increase the psychological and financial burdens [2]. The fear of being discriminated against has been reported to play a significant role in creating barriers and increasing the delay in seeking treatment [3]. Stigma and discrimination are widely experienced by people with mental disorders in many domains of their daily life, such as in employment, social activities, personal relationships, housing, marriage, and so on [48]. In China, words like “violent,” “crazy,” “strange”, and “useless” are often used to describe people with mental disorders [9, 10]. Stigma and discrimination surrounding mental disorders represent not only factors that hamper treatment-seeking [11], but may also delay the healing process for people with mental disorders [12] and prevent people with mental disorders from achieving their social rights and full participation in the life of their community.

Moreover, the family members of people with mental disorders are often blamed by the public [13]. Empirical evidence showed that families of people with mental disorders are likely to ignore the problem when their family members experience discrimination: they may hide them from public life, delay treatment seeking, or even reject professional help. Such attitudes and behaviors may determine a pejorative illness course and increase the psychological and financial burdens on the families [1416].

In order to reduce the treatment gap and provide more consistent and accessible mental health services, the World Health Organization (WHO) has encouraged countries to integrate mental health services into their primary care systems. However, negative attitudes toward mental disorders among the general population are likely to represent an obstacle to the development of more efficient community mental health services [17].

Additionally, the general public could, through greater social engagement and more acceptance of mental disorders, play an essential role in rehabilitating the mentally ill. This is no easy task, since people with mental disorders have often been labeled as “violent” and “dangerous”, and the attitudes of the general public have contributed to exacerbating the conditions of people with mental disorders [18].

Thornicroft et al. [19] defined stigma as an overarching term that refers to three main elements: problems of knowledge (ignorance), problems of attitude (prejudice), and problems of behavior (discrimination). It has been reported that lack of accurate mental health knowledge may be one of the leading factors that may contribute to stereotyping people with mental disorders [20]. However, it has also been found that health professionals, who are supposed to have greater knowledge concerning mental health issues with respect to the general population, often have more negative attitudes toward mental disorders than the general public [2123]. This finding contradicts a common assumption that greater knowledge of mental disorders results in less of a discriminatory attitude, and thus it throws into question the, supposedly positive, relationship between mental health knowledge and discriminatory attitudes.

The main aims of this study were to evaluate attitudes and knowledge about mental disorders in a sample of the Chinese general population and to explore their relationships with socio-demographic characteristics. Results from this study could yield some applications: first, it could help in designing programs that would aim to reduce public stigma against mental disorders; second, it could provide guidance for the government to undertake further strategic action.

Methods

Participants

A “snowball” sampling method was used to recruit participants. A digital version of a self-made schedule and of two standardized questionnaires was sent to 50 people known to the study authors (including families, friends, and other acquaintances), who previously agreed to participate in the study and to share the digital questionnaires through the Internet chat application “We-Chat”, which has over 800 million active members in China. A standardized statement accompanying the questionnaire encouraged all the participants to transmit the electronic questionnaire to their friends or family members. Participants were informed, at the beginning of the survey, that expression “mental disorders” in the questionnaire referred to schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder. All potential participants were also informed that they had a chance to win a raffle prize as a reward.

Participants were finally asked to provide anonymous informed consent in electronic format, before taking part in the survey. The survey was conducted from June to December 2017. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University.

Instruments

A self-made questionnaire was used to collect participants’ basic demographic data (including age, gender, level of education, and place of residence).

The Mental Health Knowledge Questionnaire (MHKQ) was developed to evaluate public knowledge and awareness of mental health by the Chinese Ministry of Health (MOH) in 2009. It contains 20 self-administered items. Items 1–16 (the first section) require participants to select “true,” “false,” or “unknown” about statements concerning mental health. For items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16, a “true” answer corresponded to a 1-point score, while a “false” or “unknown” answer corresponded to score of 0. By contrast, for items 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14, a “false” answer gave a score of 1, while “true” or “unknown” answers corresponded to score of 0. Finally, items 17–20 (the second section) are statements concerning previous knowledge about the “four mental health promotion days”. Total scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge of mental health issues. The Cronbach’s coefficient of MHKQ was reported to be 0.61 [24].

The Perceived Devaluation and Discrimination Scale (PDD) [25] was used to assess the degree of stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental disorders. It contains 12 items and each item is rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree). Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 10 required reverse scoring. Total scores ranged from 12 to 60, with higher scores indicating lower levels of stigma. The Chinese version of the PDD has been reported to have strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.70).

Participants were also requested to answer three additional questions concerning their source of information about mental disorders (i.e., portrayals in mass media vs. direct encounter), level of contact with mentally ill people, and their attitude toward psychotropic drugs (with the following four response options: “Effective”, “They make people worse”, “Ineffective” and “Likely to lead to dependency”).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to explore basic socio-demographic data. The scores obtained from PDD and MHKQ were then compared among sample subgroups, created according to demographic characteristics, using one-way analysis of variance. The demographic information used to create subgroups included gender, age, education, place of residence, sources of information, and level of contact with people with mental disorders. The correlation between knowledge about mental disorders and attitudes toward those disorders was examined by the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. For all statistical analyses SPSS v18 was used and the level of significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Sample characteristics

A total of 1104 participants finished the questionnaires, but 15 participants were excluded because they reported having been diagnosed with mental disorders in the past and two participants were excluded because they were below legal age for providing informed consent (i.e., 16 years). A total of 1087 participants were finally included in our survey and their mean (±SD) age was 33.93 (±9.76) years, within a range of 16–67 years. Our participants were predominantly female (N = 693; 63.8%). The socio-demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of the participants (n = 1087)

Variable

N

%

Gender

 Male

394

36.2

 Female

693

63.8

Age (years)

 16–24

114

10.5

 25–34

558

51.3

 35–44

235

21.6

 45 and above

180

16.6

Education

 Junior high school or less

97

8.9

 Senior high school

160

14.7

 College degree/undergraduate

608

55.9

 Postgraduate or above

222

20.4

Place of residence

 Urban area

901

82.9

 Rural area

186

17.1

Contact with and general knowledge about mental disorders

The majority of our respondents declared previous contact with people suffering from mental disorders (64.9%; n = 706), although 59.7% (n = 649) of participants reported that they learned about mental disorders from portrayals in mass media, while 40.3% (n = 438) had personal encounters with mentally ill people as a primary source of knowledge about mental disorders. With respect to the participants’ attitudes toward psychotropic drugs, 66.9% (n = 727) of them considered them effective, 3.7% (n = 40) of participants believed that they would lead to a worse outcome, 25.8% (n = 280) envisaged the risk to lead to dependency, and 3.7% (n = 40) considered them “ineffective”.

Responses frequencies for the PDD and MHKQ

The mean total score for the PDD was 33.77 (SD = 6.66), and scores ranged from 12 to 57. The answer for each item is displayed in Table 2.
Table 2

The results of PDD (n = 1087)

Items

Strongly agree (n, %)

Agree (n, %)

Unsure (n, %)

Disagree (n, %)

Strongly disagree (n, %)

1. Most people would accept a former mental patient as a close friend.

49 (4.5)

149 (13.7)

545 (50.1)

253 (23.3)

91 (8.4)

2. Most people believe that a person who has been in a mental hospital is just as intelligent as the average person.

123 (11.3)

300 (27.6)

418 (38.5)

187 (17.2)

59 (5.4)

3. Most people believe that a former mental patient is just as trustworthy as the average citizen.

92 (8.5)

259 (23.8)

422 (38.8)

249 (22.9)

65 (6.0)

4. Most people would accept a fully recovered former mental patient as a teacher of young children in a public school.

98 (9.0)

285 (26.2)

286 (26.3)

258 (23.7)

160 (14.7)

5. Most people believe that entering a mental hospital is a sign of personal failure.

23 (2.1)

120 (11.0)

213 (19.6)

357 (32.8)

374 (34.4)

6. Most people would not hire a former mental patient to take care of their children, even if he or she had been well for some time.

360 (33.1)

421 (38.7)

169 (15.5)

96 (8.8)

41 (3.8)

7. Most people think less of a person who has been in a mental hospital.

116 (10.7)

397 (36.5)

256 (23.6)

233 (21.4)

85 (7.8)

8. Most employers will hire a former mental patient if he or she is qualified for the job.

73 (6.7)

198 (18.2)

455 (41.9)

268 (24.7)

93 (8.6)

9. Most employers will pass over the application of a former mental patient in favor of another applicant.

199 (18.3)

496 (45.5)

256 (23.6)

101 (9.3)

35 (3.2)

10. Most people in my community would treat a former mental patient just as they treat anyone.

83 (7.6)

311 (28.6)

440 (40.5)

209 (19.2)

44 (4.0)

11. Most young women would be reluctant to date a man who has been hospitalized for serious mental disorder.

365 (33.6)

443 (40.8)

208 (19.1)

53 (4.9)

18 (1.7)

12. Once they know a person was in a mental hospital, most people will take his or her opinions less seriously.

124 (11.4)

430 (39.6)

342 (31.5)

162 (14.9)

29 (2.7)

As for the MHKQ, the total scores ranged from 5 to 20 with a mean score of 15.89 (±2.69). The mean score for the first section (true vs. false questions) was 13.50 (± = 2.17), and 159 (14.6%) participants got a score of 16.

For the second section of MHKQ, there were 258 (23.7%) participants who recognized all four mental health promotion days. The rate of correct responses is displayed in Table 3.
Table 3

The correct response rate of MHKQ (n = 1087)

Item

n

Percent (%)

1. Mental health is a component of health. (true)

1047

96.3

2. Mental disorders are caused by incorrect thinking. (false)

596

54.8

3. Many people have mental problems but do not realise it. (true)

1052

96.8

4. All mental disorders are caused by external stressors. (false)

653

60.1

5. Components of mental health include normal intelligence, stable mood, a positive attitude, quality interpersonal relationship and adaptability. (true)

1035

95.2

6. Most mental disorders cannot be cured. (false)

742

68.3

7. Psychological or psychiatric services should be sought if one suspects the presence of psychological problems or a mental disorder. (true)

969

89.1

8. Psychological problems can occur at almost any age. (true)

1049

96.5

9. Mental disorders and psychological problems cannot be prevented. (false)

825

75.9

10. Even for severe mental disorders (eg, schizophrenia), medications should be taken for a given period of time only; there is no need to take them for a long time. (false)

887

81.6

11. Positive attitudes, good interpersonal relationships and healthy life style can help maintain mental health. (true)

1046

96.2

12. Individuals with a family history of mental disorders are at a higher risk for psychological problems and mental disorders. (true)

981

90.2

13. Psychological problems in adolescents do not influence academic grades. (false)

964

88.7

14. Middle-aged or elderly individuals are unlikely to develop psychological problems and mental disorders. (false)

957

88.0

15. Individuals with a bad temperament are more likely to have mental problems. (true)

838

77.1

16. Mental problems or disorders may occur when an individual is under psychological stress facing major life events (eg, death of family members). (true)

1031

94.8

17. Have you heard about International Mental Health Day? (yes)

613

56.4

18. Have you heard about the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking? (yes)

947

87.1

19. Have you heard about the International Suicide Prevention Day? (yes)

345

31.7

20. Have you heard about World Sleep Day? (yes)

694

63.8

PDD and demographic variables

Table 4 shows the mean PDD scores for different subgroups of participants, stratified according to basic socio-demographic characteristics. There were statistically significant differences in the scores that matched with age and place of residence. Analysis of variance showed that those under 25 years old scored higher than those above that age, but the difference was significant only with respect to those aged 35–44 years (F = 5.37, P = 0.001). Participants from rural areas scored significantly higher than those from cities (t = − 2.42, P = 0.016). Differences in the stigma level according to participants’ gender, educational level, sources of information about mental disorders, and contact levels with people with mental disorders were not statistically significant.
Table 4

Associations between PDD and demographic variables

Item

n

Mean score

t/F

P

Gender

  

0.67

0.500

 Male

394

33.96 ± 7.24

  

 Female

693

33.66 ± 6.31

  

Age (years)

  

5.37

0.001

 16–24

114

35.11 ± 5.48

  

 25–34

558

34.03 ± 6.69

  

 35–44

235

32.37 ± 7.11

  

 45 and above

180

33.92 ± 6.39

  

Education

  

0.13

0.942

 Junior high school or less

97

33.90 ± 6.76

  

 Senior high school

160

33.82 ± 6.77

  

 College/undergraduate

608

33.83 ± 6.58

  

 Postgraduate or above

222

33.52 ± 6.79

  

Place of residence

  

−2.42

0.016

 Urban area

901

33.56 ± 6.74

  

 Rural area

186

34.78 ± 6.20

  

Sources of information about mental disorders

  

1.31

0.192

 Mass media

649

33.99 ± 6.44

  

 Personal encounters

438

33.44 ± 6.97

  

Contact level

  

1.40

0.161

 No

381

34.15 ± 6.54

  

 Yes

706

33.56 ± 6.72

  

MHKQ and demographic variables

Table 5 shows the mean MHKQ scores for different demographic groups of participants. The impact of participants’ ages, educational level, areas of residence, sources of information about mental disorders, and level of contact with mentally ill people was significant over the MHKQ scoring. The analysis of variance showed that those aged 25–44 years had significantly higher MHKQ total scores than those above 45 years old. Participants with higher education levels had higher MHKQ scores (F = 65.72, P < 0.001). Urban residents had higher MHKQ scores than rural residents (t = 7.32, P < 0.001). Those who had previous contact with people with mental disorders (t = − 4.85, P < 0.001) and who had learned about mental disorders with personal encounters (t = − 2.10, P = 0.036) had higher MHKQ scores.
Table 5

Associations between MHKQ and demographic variables

Item

n

Mean score

t/F

P

Gender

  

−1.02

0.310

 Male

394

15.78 ± 2.80

  

 Female

693

15.95 ± 2.63

  

Age (years)

  

4.56

0.003

 16–24

114

15.82 ± 2.16

  

 25–34

558

15.93 ± 2.86

  

 35–44

235

16.27 ± 2.52

  

 45 and above

180

15.30 ± 2.61

  

Education

  

65.72

< 0.001

 Junior high school or less

97

13.36 ± 2.28

  

 Senior high school

160

14.69 ± 2.36

  

 College/undergraduate

608

16.17 ± 2.51

  

 Postgraduate or above

222

17.08 ± 2.58

  

Place of residence

  

7.32

< 0.001

 Urban area

901

16.15 ± 2.62

  

 Rural area

186

14.60 ± 2.65

  

Sources of information about mental disorders

  

−2.10

0.036

 Mass media

649

15.74 ± 2.54

  

 Personal encounters

438

16.10 ± 2.89

  

Contact level

  

−4.85

< 0.001

 No

381

15.35 ± 2.56

  

 Yes

706

16.18 ± 2.72

  

The relationship between PDD and MHKQ

We didn’t find any statistically significant relationship between the total scores of the PDD and MHKQ scales (r = − 0.032, P = 0.293).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the general public knowledge of and attitudes toward mental disorders through a web-based survey in China. Although our samples couldn’t represent the entire Chinese population, we can still provide a reliable account of attitudes and knowledge toward mental health in China. Compared with previous studies [2628], our results showed that mental health knowledge has improved recently, while most people’s attitudes toward mental disorders are still negative. Hence, it is vital to further discuss how to improve mental health knowledge and what might be the impact of such programs on people’s attitudes toward mental disorders.

In terms of knowledge on mental disorders and stigmatizing attitudes, we didn’t find any differences with respect to participants’ gender, in line with previous studies [20, 24]. However, there were also studies that investigated such measures in medical students and mental health staff that demonstrated that women tend to have greater knowledge about mental health and that they were more willing to interact with people with mental disorders [29, 30]. In our survey, we did not report such significant differences and thus this issue should be further explored in order to properly discuss the need of developing gender-specific anti-stigma interventions in China.

In contrast to other studies [26], our study also found that residents in rural areas had more positive attitudes toward people with mental disorders than those who lived in urban areas. One possible explanation for this evidence is that rural communities may be more tolerant of unusual behaviors, typical of people with mental disorders. However, evidence from previous studies provided rather mixed results. Girma et al. [20] found that living in rural places was the strongest predictor of families holding stigmatizing attitudes toward their mentally ill relatives. Authors reported that rural residents showed significantly higher stigmatizing attitudes than urban residents, perhaps because of lower mental health literacy. However, we didn’t find a significant relationship between mental health literacy and discriminatory attitudes.

Our analyses did not yield any significant relationship between educational level and discrimination, but we found that participants with higher levels of education were more likely to have greater mental health knowledge. Some studies reported that lower education levels were more strongly associated with negative attitudes toward mental disorders [31, 32], but others found the inverse to be also true [33, 34]. These studies indicated that highly educated people had higher expectations of social responsibility and functioning than those with less education, and that they associated people with mental disorders with lower levels of responsibility and functioning.

Today, more and more educational initiatives and informational campaigns have been implemented to improve the public’s mental health knowledge, in order to change negative opinions toward people with mental disorders. Some of the interventions yielded positive results, as expected [35, 36]. But in our study, we didn’t find any relationship between mental health knowledge and stigmatizing attitudes. In accordance with other studies, our data tend to support the idea that the public’s mental health knowledge might not represent a highly effective remedy against discrimination [37]. As some studies have shown, health care staff with supposedly greater knowledge about mental health issues are likely to hold more negative attitudes toward mental disorders than the general population [21, 22]. Moreover, many people with mental disorders have been unfairly treated by health professionals when they have sought help for medical diseases [23]. Altogether, these findings suggest that other ways to decrease stigma against mental disorders are still to be pursued.

Exposing the general public to people with mental disorders has been a method used by many anti-stigma campaigns as an effective way to improve attitudes towards mental disorders among the target group [36, 3840]. However, in our survey we didn’t find any significant difference in the attitudes of subgroups who had or had no previous contact with people with mental disorders. Participants who reported having had contact with people with mental disorders also showed greater mental health knowledge. Once again, such findings are in line with the idea that there is no correlation between knowledge of mental disorders and positive attitudes towards them.

In our study, while 64.9% of participants reported having had direct contact with people with mental disorders, most of our respondents (59.7%) acquired their understanding of mental disorders from portrayals in mass media. For people who had no direct contact with people suffering from mental disorders, mass media may be a relevant source of information which may strongly influence their perceptions and attitudes about mental disorders. However, mass media often portray people with mental disorders as dangerous, strange, unpredictable, and violent [9], which could further lead the general public to fear people with mental disorders, cause people with mental disorders to feel isolated and rejected, create greater discrimination and prevent people with mental disorders from fully integrating into society [41]. Interventions aimed at changing portrayals of mental disorders in mass media might represent a valid means to induce a significant positive change in public attitudes toward people with mental disorders.

Finally, we didn’t find an increased risk for stigmatizing attitudes except for the age and place of residence factors. A German study found that gender, age, education level, and place of residence only accounted for 1.4% of the variance [42].

There are some limitations to our study. First, the survey was based on a cross-sectional sampling strategy and on self-reported measures, so it might be difficult to make reliable inferences about the correlations or causal relationships between attitudes and knowledge. Second, since our study was a web-based survey, we couldn’t provide the participants with in-person explanations of the questions and this might influence their responses. On the other hand, using a web-based strategy allowed participants to participate in the study without feeling socially pressured or guided to respond in one way or another. Finally, since included participants represented a convenience sample, it could not fully represent the Chinese population. The latter consideration coupled with some imbalance in terms of socio-demographic characteristics of our sample (e.g., greater ratio of female respondents) might imply that our study should be replicated in a larger and more representative sample of the Chinese population.

Conclusions

Our findings suggested that overall mental health knowledge may have improved in the Chinese population over the years, but that most Chinese people still hold negative attitudes toward mental disorders. According to our data, this tendency seems to be more relevant in urban areas. It is important to carry out anti-stigma campaigns for the future progress of mental health in China. Although some campaigns aim to improve the public’s mental health knowledge, it is still a matter of open debate whether increasing mental health knowledge may actually decrease people’s discriminatory attitudes toward people with mental disorders or not. Finally, although we did not find a positive correlation between participants’ levels of contact with people with mental illness and their attitudes toward people with mental disorders, we did find similar evidence in other studies. Thus, we should further explore the hypothesis that more frequent contact with people with mental disorders may change negative attitudes towards mental disorders.

Abbreviations

MHKQ: 

The Mental Health Knowledge Questionnaire (MHKQ)

MOH: 

Ministry of Health

PDD: 

Perceived Devaluation and Discrimination Scale

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful Umberto Volpe (Polytechnic University of Marche) who commented on the manuscript. We also would like to thank Xiao-dan Li (Xinxiang Medical University), Hui-cong Ren and Shi-na Gu (The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University) who helped in the data collection.

Funding

This study was funded by Xinxiang Medical University Educational Reform Program Foundation (Number2017-XYJG-26), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Number81471349) and Natural Science Foundation of Henan province (Number162300410224).

Availability of data and materials

All the data supporting our findings have been presented in the manuscript; however, the datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

JL designed and led the study, drafted the manuscript. MMZ and LZ contributed to the study design, helped with data collection and conducted the main analysis. WQL and JLM contributed to the study design and critically appraised the manuscript. ZHZ was involved in the data collection and editing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by Research Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University. All the participants informed the purpose of the study and gave their oral consent before the investigation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, 388# Jianshe Road, Muye, Xinxiang, China
(2)
Xinxiang Medical University, 601# Jinsui Road, Hongqi, Xinxiang, China
(3)
Henan Key Laboratory of Biological Psychiatry (Xinxiang Medical University), 388# Jianshe Road, Muye, Xinxiang, China
(4)
Xinxiang Key Laboratory of Electrophysiology, 388# Jianshe Road, Muye, Xinxiang, China

References

  1. Patel V, Maj M, Flisher AJ, De Silva MJ, Koschorke M, Prince M. Reducing the treatment gap for mental disorders: a WPA survey. World Psychiatry. 2010;9(3):169–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Girma E, Tesfaye M. Patterns of treatment seeking behavior for mental illnesses in Southwest Ethiopia: a hospital based study. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:138.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown NB, Bruce SE. Stigma, career worry, and mental illness symptomatology: factors influencing treatment-seeking for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers and veterans. Psychol Trauma. 2016;8(3):276–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Webber M, Corker E, Hamilton S, Weeks C, Pinfold V, Rose D, Thornicroft G, Henderson C. Discrimination against people with severe mental illness and their access to social capital: findings from the viewpoint survey. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014;23(2):155–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Lasalvia A, Zoppei S, Van Bortel T, Bonetto C, Cristofalo D, Wahlbeck K, Bacle SV, Van Audenhove C, van Weeghel J, Reneses B, Germanavicius A, Economou M, Lanfredi M, Ando S, Sartorius N, Lopez-Ibor JJ, Thornicroft G, ASPEN/INDIGO Study Group. Global pattern of experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with major depressive disorder: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2013;381(9860):55–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Thornicroft G, Brohan E, Rose D, Sartorius N, Leese M. Global pattern of experienced and anticipated discrimination against people with schizophrenia: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2009;373(9661):408–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Stuart H. Fighting the stigma caused by mental disorders: past perspectives, present activities, and future directions. World Psychiatry. 2008;7(3):185–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Corker EA, Beldie A, Brain C, Jakovljevic M, Jarema M, Karamustafalioglu O, Marksteiner J, Mohr P, Prelipceanu D, Vasilache A, Waern M, Sartorius N, Thornicroft G, FEDORA Study Group. Experience of stigma and discrimination reported by people experiencing the first episode of schizophrenia and those with a first episode of depression: the FEDORA project. Int J Soc. Psychiatry. 2015;61(5):438–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan SKW, Ching EYN, Lam KSC, So HC, Hui CLM, Lee EHM, Chang WC, Chen EYH. Newspaper coverage of mental illness in Hong Kong between 2002 and 2012: impact of introduction of a new Chinese name of psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2017;11(4):342–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Pescosolido BA, Monahan J, Link BG, Stueve A, Kikuzawa S. The public’s view of the competence, dangerousness, and need for legal coercion of persons with mental health problems. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1339–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Al-Darmaki F, Thomas J, Yaaqeib S. Mental health beliefs amongst Emirati female college students. Community Ment Health J. 2016;52(2):233–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Oexle N, Müller M, Kawohl W, Xu Z, Viering S, Wyss C, Vetter S, Rüsch N. Self-stigma as a barrier to recovery: a longitudinal study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2018;268(2):209–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Tawiah PE, Adongo PB, Aikins M. Mental health-related stigma and discrimination in Ghana: experience of patients and their caregivers. Ghana Med J. 2015;49(1):30–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Larson JE, Corrigan P. The stigma of families with mental illness. Acad Psychiatry. 2008;32(2):87–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Shibre T, Negash A, Kullgren G, Kebede D, Alem A, Fekadu A, Fekadu D, Madhin G, Jacobsson L. Perception of stigma among family members of individuals with schizophrenia and major affective disorders in rural Ethiopia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2001;36(6):299–303.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Ohaeri JU, Fido AA. The opinion of caregivers on aspects of schizophrenia and major affective disorders in a Nigerian setting. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2001;36(10):493–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohls E, Coppens E, Hug J, et al. Public attitudes toward depression and help-seeking: impact of the OSPI-Europe depression awareness campaign in four European regions. J Affect Disord. 2017;217:252–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Corrigan PW, Watson AC. Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry. 2002;1(1):16–20.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Thornicroft G, Rose D, Kassam A, Sartorius N. Stigma: ignorance, prejudice or discrimination. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:192–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Girma E, Tesfaye M, Froeschl G, Möller-Leimkühler AM, Müller N, Dehning S. Public stigma against people with mental illness in the Gilgel Gibe Field Research Center (GGFRC) in Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82116.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Adewuya AO, Oguntade AA. Doctors’ attitude towards people with mental illness in Western Nigeria. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007;42(11):931–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Schulze B. Stigma and mental health professionals: a review of the evidence on an intricate relationship. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2007;19(2):137–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Harangozo J, Reneses B, Brohan E, Weeks C, Pinfold V, Rose D, Thornicroft G, Henderson C. Stigma and discrimination against people with schizophrenia related to medical services. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014;60(4):359–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Björkman T, Svensson B, Lundberg B. Experiences of stigma among people with severe mental illness. Reliability, acceptability and construct validity of the Swedish versions of two stigma scales measuring devaluation/discrimination and rejection experiences. Nord J Psychiatry. 2007;61(5):332–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu J, Yao MJ, Lu YY, Li YH, Lv QJ. Attitude to mental disorder among residents in Zhengzhou city: a cross-sectional survey. Chin J Public Health. 2015;31(8):987–9 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  26. Yao MJ, Yan XF, Chang ZJ, Liu J, Yan L, Gao Q, Lv QJ. Awareness rate of mental health knowledge in residents in Zheng Zhou City. Chin Ment Health J. 2013;27(9):682–5 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  27. Hu HY, Yan YZ, Chen LM, Pu WJ, Liao W, Li J. Knowledge about mental health and attitude to mental disorder in urban and rural residents in Guangzhou. Chin Ment Health J. 2012;26(1):30–5 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  28. Yu Y, Liu ZW, Hu M, Liu XG, Liu HM, Yang JP, Zhou L, Xiao SY. Assessment of mental health literacy using a multifaceted measure among a Chinese rural population. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e009054.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Rong Y, Glozier N, Luscombe GM, Davenport TA, Huang Y, Hickie IB. Improving knowledge and attitudes towards depression: a controlled trial among Chinese medical students. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Li J, Li J, Thornicroft G, Huang YG. Levels of stigma among community mental health staff in Guangzhou, China. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:231.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Cook TM, Wang J. Descriptive epidemiology of stigma against depression in a general population sample in Alberta. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Reta Y, Tesfaye M, Girma E, Dehning S, Adorjan K. Public stigma against people with mental illness in Jimma Town, Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0163103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Bedaso A, Yeneabat T, Yohannis Z, Bedasso K, Feyera F. Community attitude and associated factors towards people with mental illness among residents of Worabe Town, Silte Zone, southern nation’s nationalities and people’s region, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149429.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Song LY, Chang LY, Shih CY, Lin CY, Yang MJ. Community attitudes towards the mentally ill: the results of a national survey of the Taiwanese population. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2005;51(2):162–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Li J, Li J, Huang Y, Thornicroft G. Mental health training program for community mental health staff in Guangzhou, China: effects on knowledge of mental illness and stigma. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2014;8(1):49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Hansson L, Stjernswärd S, Svensson B. Changes in attitudes, intended behaviour, and mental health literacy in the Swedish. population 2009–2014: an evaluation of a national antistigma programme. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2016;134(Suppl 446):71–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Weisman HL, Kia-Keating M, Lippincott A, Taylor Z, Zheng J. Mental health stigma prevention: pilot testing a novel, language arts curriculum-based approach for youth. J Sch Health. 2016;86(10):709–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Clement S, van Nieuwenhuizen A, Kassam A, Flach C, Lazarus A, de Castro M, McCrone P, Norman I, Thornicroft G. Filmed v. live social contact interventions to reduce stigma: randomised controlled trial. Br J. Psychiatry. 2012;201(1):57–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Evans-Lacko S, London J, Japhet S, Rüsch N, Flach C, Corker E, Henderson C, Thornicroft G. Mass social contact interventions and their effect on mental health related stigma and intended discrimination. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:489.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Klarić M, Lovrić S. Methods to fight mental illness stigma. Psychiatr Danub. 2017;29(Suppl 5):910–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Schomerus G, Stolzenburg S, Bauch A, Speerforck S, Janowitz D, Angermeyer MC. Shifting blame? Impact of reports of violence and mental illness in the context of terrorism on population attitudes towards persons with mental illness in Germany. Psychiatry Res. 2017;252:164–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Angermeyer MC, Beck M, Matschinger H. Determinants of the public’s preference for social distance from people with schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry. 2003;48(10):663–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement