Search

Professionals with lived experience (LE) of mental distress might better understand service users, educate colleagues, and serve as role models. This exploratory quantitative study asked U.S. social work education leaders if they perceive positives and negatives of professionals having LE; what advice they would offer students with LE; and analyzed whether certain experiences influenced responses. Having LE and/or close relationships with people with LE was associated with perceiving positives, which was associated with advising students about using LE to help others. Perceiving negatives was associated with advising about difficulties. Implications are offered for preparing professionals to use LE in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some social work educators advocate for people with mental health conditions to become social workers because they may possess experiential knowledge and insights that equip them to help others achieve recovery goals. Educators also are tasked with gatekeeping, ensuring that students demonstrate social work competencies. Minimal research exists about how schools handle these dual responsibilities. Using an online survey of deans and directors and BSW and MSW coordinators of programs accredited by the Council on Social Work Education, this mixed-methods study asked about program administrators' (a) experiences with students with mental health conditions and (b) existing and needed policies and practices related to these students. According to findings, a large majority described problems experienced by students with mental health conditions; schools managed mental health-related issues in a variety of ways; most said these students have graduated using supports; about half indicated students had been terminated because of mental health-related issues; disruptive behaviors, absences, and boundary issues were key challenges; and some programs' practices might violate federal statutes. Student counseling, legal advice, and relationships with disability resource centers were desired resources. Implications include considerations for policies that are consistent with social work's social justice mandate, federal laws, and our gatekeeping responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about mental illness discrimination toward and supports for people with mental health conditions (MHCs) who are of color and/or lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). Informed by an intersectionality framework that facilitates an understanding of intragroup dynamics, this exploratory qualitative study used in-depth interviews to ask 20 people with MHCs and family members of people with MHCs who also identified as of color and/or LGB about their experiences (a) with mental illness discrimination and supports within their identity communities and (b) in peer- and family-run programs. Participants of color reported that their racial-ethnic communities commonly deny that MHCs exist and shame people with MHCs, and LGB participants said that LGB communities often exclude and stereotype them. Interactions with others with MHCs and affirmation of lesbian and gay identities serve as recovery supports within identity communities. Peer- and family-run programs provide a sense of humanization and education, respectively but are sites of heterosexism and may not address the needs of people of color; identity-specific programs are therefore desired. We describe variations in experiences related to race, ethnicity, and sexuality intersections; no differences in descriptions of mental illness discrimination in the focal identity communities emerged between people with MHCs versus family members. Implications include that efforts are needed to address discrimination in identity communities and peer- and family-run programs, and service providers need to recognize that identity intersections affect experiences with discrimination and supports. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stigma is a significant barrier to recovery and full community inclusion for people with mental illnesses. Social work educators can play critical roles in addressing this stigma, yet little is known about their attitudes. Social work educators were surveyed about their general attitudes about people with mental illnesses, attitudes about practice with people with mental illnesses, and attitudes about students with mental illnesses. On average, educators’ general and practice attitudes were not negative. However, respondents did view a student with a mental illness differently from a “typical social work student.” Findings suggest that we, as social work educators, must raise our awareness and address our own attitudes to support students and uphold our social work values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many social workers practice in settings serving people with mental illnesses, but social work education in the United States has given minimal attention to helping students understand the systemic nature of prejudice and discrimination experienced by this population. Some courses address prejudice (stigma) toward people with mental illnesses, but a critical consideration of systemic oppression appears to be lacking. We explain how an oppression framework used to understand the systemic nature of racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression is useful in illuminating experiences related to (perceived) mental health status. We offer suggestions for incorporating content into courses that focus on diversity and oppression with the goal of preparing students to engage in antioppressive practice with people who have mental illnesses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: Stigma and discrimination against people with mental illnesses are serious problems that can lead to many negative effects. This study examined providers' awareness of consumers' daily lived experience of discrimination. Method: We surveyed SI peer employees and 52 licensed clinicians to learn how they viewed the extent of public stigma and discrimination. Results: Clinicians, women, and those who had observed a friend with a mental illness treated unfairly perceived significantly higher levels of public discrimination than did their counterparts (adjusted R² = .399, p < .001). Men's perceptions of public discrimination were more strongly affected by personal contact. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Mental health providers are uniquely situated to help consumers deal with the effects of discrimination and should incorporate this issue into their clinical practice. Further research should examine the reasons for differences in perception and how these differences relate to provider behavior and consumer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the impact of statutory revisions in 2016 which aimed to enhance procedural justice within the process of civil commitment for persons diagnosed with mental illnesses (PDMI) in South Korea. These changes included requiring that PDMI pose a threat of danger to self or others and the need for treatment simultaneously as criteria for petitioning civil commitment. Additionally, the revision established a public entity to oversee the legitimacy of petitions to involuntarily commit PDMI to inpatient treatment. Despite these statutory changes, families providing care for PDMI still appear to depend on civil commitment as a way to seek respite from care burden, not necessarily to respond to psychiatric emergencies involving dangerousness. This practice seems to be aided by processes within the public entity providing oversight. Due to such barriers we hypothesized that, even after the statutory revision in 2016, PDMI who had been civilly committed following petitions from families will not exhibit elevated dangerousness compared to PDMI who had never been hospitalized during the same period. Trained interviewers recruited 331 participants self-identified as PDMI from psychiatric rehabilitation agencies in the community and aided them in completing a survey including measures of self-reported hospitalization history, suicidality, and aggression toward others. Participants were classified into four groups: Family-petition committed (FPC) group (n = 30, 9.1%), voluntarily hospitalized (VH) group (n = 34, 10.3%), public-petition committed (PPC) group (n = 31, 9.4%), and never hospitalized (NH) group (n = 236, 71.3%). We conducted logistic regression analyses to compare self-reported dangerousness between groups with the NH group as the reference group. In the past 12 months, 43.5% of PDMI participants had self-reported behaviors that may have met the dangerousness criteria for civil commitment. Controlling for confounding factors, the PPC group was 2.96 times and 3.02 times as likely to report suicidal ideation and physical aggression, respectively, compared to the NH group. However, as hypothesized, the FPC group did not differ from the NH group on any indicator of self-reported dangerousness. The findings were based on cross-sectional correlational data and should not be viewed as conclusive evidence that the 2016 statutory revision is ineffective in preventing family-petitioned civil commitment in cases where dangerousness is not apparent. Nevertheless, these findings encourage further empirical studies that illuminate the etiology of procedural justice in civil commitments petitioned by family members and that assess factors and contexts that promote the consideration of least coercive treatments, rather than resorting to involuntary hospitalization when psychiatric emergencies arise. • Persons with Mental Illnesses (PDMI) in South Korea were studied as to impacts of statutory revisions in 2016 that required dangerousness as criteria for petitioning civil commitment. • PDMI with family-petitioned civil commitment history, weren't expected to display increased danger post-2016 statutory revision. • Among 331 surveyed PDMI, those petitioned by family for civil commitment didn't show elevated dangerousness. • The findings encourage further empirical studies to illuminate the etiology of procedural (in)justice in civil commitments petitioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]