Search

Introduction: Mental health-related stigma occurs not only within the public community but is also an issue among healthcare professionals. The relationship between national culture and provider stigma remains yet to be empirically attested. Objectives: We performed a cross-sectional multicentre study across 32 European countries to investigate the attitudes of psychiatrists towards patients with mental health problems. We aimed to examine the relationship of attitude with country-specific indicators. Methods: We measured stigmatizing attitudes using the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) within an online survey among specialists and trainees in general adult, child and adolescent psychiatry. Its total score was correlated with the Human Development Index (HDI), the Democracy Index (DI), the Social Progress Index (SPI), the number of psychiatrists per 100,000 people, and the Hofstede dimensions. Latent class analysis was done to find subgroups of countries according to the stigmatizing attitudes of psychiatrists and the six Hofstede dimensions. Results: Altogether, n=4245 participants completed the survey. The total score of the OMS-HC significantly correlated with the long-term orientation (r=0.453, p=0.015) and indulgence dimensions (r=-0.629, p<0.0001) and with the HDI (r=-0.503, p=0.005), DI (r=-0.418, p=0.024), SPI (r=-0.348, p=0.040). The latent class analysis separated high- and low-stigma countries. High stigma was associated with high power distance and uncertainty scores. Conclusions: Findings from this study not only expand knowledge of factors related to stigmatizing attitudes of healthcare professionals, but also enlighten the cultural aspects of the stigma that could contribute to the further development of anti-stigma programs. Disclosure of Interest: D. Őri Grant / Research support from: Research grant form the Fulbright Association, P. Szocsics: None Declared, T. Molnár: None Declared, L. Bankovska Motlova: None Declared, O. Kazakova: None Declared, S. Mörkl: None Declared, M. Wallies: None Declared, M. Abdulhakim: None Declared, S. Boivin: None Declared, K. Bruna: None Declared, C. Cabaços: None Declared, E. A. Carbone: None Declared, E. Dashi: None Declared, G. Grech: None Declared, S. Greguras: None Declared, I. Ivanovic: None Declared, K. Guevara: None Declared, S. Kakar: None Declared, K. Kotsis: None Declared, I. Klinkby: None Declared, J. Maslak: None Declared, S. Matheiken: None Declared, A. Mirkovic: None Declared, N. Nechepurenko: None Declared, A. Panayi: None Declared, A. Pereira: None Declared, E. Pomarol-Clotet: None Declared, S. Raaj: None Declared, P. Rus Prelog: None Declared, J. Soler-Vidal: None Declared, R. Strumila: None Declared, F. Schuster: None Declared, H. Kisand: None Declared, A. Reim: None Declared, G. Ahmadova: None Declared, M. Vircik: None Declared, H. Yilmaz Kafali: None Declared, N. Grinko: None Declared, Z. Győrffy: None Declared, S. Rózsa: None Declared [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traumatic events increase risk of mental illnesses, but childhood neglect prevalence in psychiatric disorders is understudied. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed neglect prevalence, including emotional neglect (EN) and physical neglect (PN), among adults with psychiatric disorders. We conducted a systematic search and meta-analysis in 122 studies assessing different psychiatric disorders. Prevalence was 46.6% (95%CI[34.5-59.0]) for unspecified neglect (Ne), 43.1% (95%CI[39.0-47.4]) for EN, and 34.8% (95%CI[30.6-39.2]) for PN. Although a moderating effect of the psychiatric diagnostic category was not confirmed, some clinical diagnoses had significantly lower prevalence rates than others. Patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder showed lower prevalence rates of EN and PN, whereas lower prevalence was found in psychotic disorders and eating disorders for PN only. Neglect assessment was a significant moderator for Ne and PN. No moderating effect of age and sex on neglect prevalence was found. Heterogeneity levels within and between psychiatric diagnostic categories remained high. This is the first meta-analysis examining diverse types of neglect prevalence considering different psychiatric diagnoses. Our results explore the prevalence of childhood neglect and its subtypes among adults with psychiatric disorders, contributing to understanding the nuanced interplay between neglect and specific psychiatric conditions, and guiding interventions for affected individuals., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Mental health-related stigma occurs among the public and professionals alike. The lived experience of mental illness has been linked to less stigmatising attitudes. However, data on psychiatrists and the relationship between stigmatising attitudes and psychotherapeutic activity or case discussion groups remains scarce., Methods: A cross-sectional multicentre study was performed in 32 European countries to investigate the lived experiences and attitudes of psychiatrists toward patients with mental illness as well as the relationship between stigma, psychosocial and professional factors. The self-reported, anonymous, internet-based Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers was used to measure the stigmatising attitudes. The survey was translated into the local language of each participating country. All participants were practising specialists and trainees in general adult or child and adolescent psychiatry. The study took place between 2nd October, 2019 and 9th July, 2021 and was preregistered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04644978)., Findings: A total of 4245 psychiatrists completed the survey. The majority, 2797 (66%), had completed training in psychiatry, and 3320 (78%) worked in adult psychiatry. The final regression model showed that across European countries more favourable attitudes toward people with mental illness were statistically significantly associated with the lived experience of participants (including seeking help for their own mental health conditions (d = -0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.68 to -0.15, p = 0.019), receiving medical treatment for a mental illness (d = -0.88, 95% CI = -1.71 to -0.04, p = 0.040), as well as having a friend or a family member similarly affected (d = -0.68, 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.22, p = 0.004)), being surrounded by colleagues who are less stigmatising (d = -0.98, 95% CI = -1.26 to -0.70, p < 0.001), providing psychotherapy to patients (d = -1.14, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.65 p < 0.001), and being open to (d = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.53 to -0.85, p < 0.001) and actively participating in (d = -0.94, 95% CI = -1.45 to -0.42, p < 0.001) case discussion, supervision, or Balint groups., Interpretation: Our study highlights the importance of psychotherapy training, supervision, case discussions and Balint groups in reducing the stigmatising attitudes of psychiatrists toward patients. As the findings represent cross-national predictors, Europe-wide policy interventions, national psychiatric education systems and the management of psychiatric institutions should take these findings into consideration., Funding: National Youth Talent Award (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary, (NTP-NFTÖ-20-B-0134). All authors received no funding for their contribution., Competing Interests: DŐ received the National Youth Talent Award in 2020 and 2021 (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary, (NTP-NFTÖ-20-B-0134 and NTP-NFTÖ-21-B-0280) that covered the membership fee for one year of the online survey platform, and the expenses of the dissemination of the results at international congresses. She received grants from the Fulbright Program in 2022, the Semmelweis 250+ Excellence PhD Scholarship in 2023 and the New National Excellence Program in 2023 (ÚNKP-23-III-2). She received support for travel from Kerpel-Fronius Talent Support Program of Semmelweis University in 2022 and 2023 (EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00009). She is a medical Secretariat at the Hungarian Psychiatric Association. The article processing charge is covered by the Semmelweis University. SMa received a grant to attend the World Congress of Psychiatry (WPA) in 2022 and 2023 from the World Psychiatric Association. She is the Vice-chair of Psychiatric trainees committee (2020–2021) of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (UK). MW is the past president of the European Federation of Psychaitric Trainees. He is a Co-president of the Verband der Schweizerischen Assistenz—und Oberarzte (Association of Swiss Assistant and Senior Physicians) Section Thuragu. SRó received support from The Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church for the statistical analyses carried out (Grant No. 20754B800). Other authors declare no competing financial interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Aims: To measure the stigma of healthcare providers toward people suffering from mental illness, the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a commonly applied instrument. However, this scale has not been thoroughly validated in many European countries, its psychometric properties are still unknown and data on practicing psychiatrists is lacking. Therefore, this multicenter study aimed to assess the psychometric characteristics of the 15-item OMS-HC in trainees and specialists in adult and child psychiatry in 32 countries across Europe., Materials and Methods: The OMS-HC was conducted as an anonymous online survey and sent via Email to European adult and child psychiatrists. Parallel analysis was used to estimate the number of OMS-HC dimensions. Separate for each country, the bifactor ESEM, a bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach, was applied to investigate the factor structure of the scale. Cross-cultural validation was done based on multigroup confirmatory factor analyses and reliability measures., Results: A total of 4,245 practitioners were included, 2,826 (67%) female, 1,389 (33%) male. The majority (66%) of participants were specialists, with 78% working in adult psychiatry. When country data were analyzed separately, the bifactor model (higher-order factor solution with a general factor and three specific factors) showed the best model fit (for the total sample χ 2 /df = 9.760, RMSEA = 0.045 (0.042-0.049), CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.960, WRMR = 1.200). The average proportion of variance explained by the general factor was high (ECV = 0.682). This suggests that the aspects of 'attitude,' 'disclosure and help-seeking,' and 'social distance' could be treated as a single dimension of stigma. Among the specific factors, the 'disclosure and help-seeking' factor explained a considerable unique proportion of variance in the observed scores., Conclusion: This international study has led to cross-cultural analysis of the OMS-HC on a large sample of practicing psychiatrists. The bifactor structure displayed the best overall model fit in each country. Rather than using the subscales, we recommend the total score to quantify the overall stigmatizing attitudes. Further studies are required to strengthen our findings in countries where the proposed model was found to be weak., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Őri, Szocsics, Molnár, Bankovska Motlova, Kazakova, Mörkl, Wallies, Abdulhakim, Boivin, Bruna, Cabacos, Carbone, Dashi, Grech, Greguras, Ivanovic, Guevara, Kakar, Kotsis, Klinkby, Maslak, Matheiken, Mirkovic, Nechepurenko, Panayi, Pereira, Pomarol-Clotet, Raaj, Rus Prelog, Soler-Vidal, Strumila, Schuster, Kisand, Hargi, Ahmadova, Vircik, Yilmaz Kafali, Grinko, Győrffy and Rózsa.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interestThe authors declare that they do not have conflict of interest.

Objectives: The global crisis of COVID-19 and its consequential strict public health measures placed around the world have impacted mental health. New scales and tools have been developed to measure these mental health effects. This narrative review assesses the psychometric properties of these scales and tools and methodological aspects of their development., Methods: PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from 15 May 2020 to 15 August 2020. This search used three groups of terms ("tool" OR "scale" AND "mental" OR "psychological"; AND "COVID-19" OR "coronavirus"). The identified scales were further evaluated for their psychometric properties and methodological aspects of their development., Results: Though the studies developing these scales ( n = 12) have demonstrated their robust psychometric properties, some methodological concerns are noteworthy. Most of the scales were validated using internet-based surveys, and detailed descriptions of the mode of administration, sampling process, response rates, and augmentation strategies were missing., Conclusions: The heterogeneous and inadequate reporting of methods adopted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the identified scales can limit their utility in clinical and research settings. We suggest developing guidelines and checklists to improve the design and testing, and result in reporting of online-administered scales to assess the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.