Search

Abstract Background Stigma associated with mental health challenges is a major barrier to service seeking among youth. Understanding how stigma impacts service-seeking decisions from the perspectives of youth remains underexplored. Such research is necessary to inform effective stigma reduction. Objective This study aims to understand how stigma influences service seeking among youth with mental health challenges. Methods Qualitative inquiry was taken using youth engagement, underpinned by pragmatism. Data were collected via 4 virtual focus groups with 22 purposively selected youth participants with lived experience of mental health challenges in Ontario, Canada. Focus group guides were developed collaboratively among research team members, including youth co-researchers. Data were analyzed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Three main themes were constructed from the data: point of entry into the system, being biomedicalized or trivialized, and paving the way for non-stigmatizing services. Initial contact with the mental healthcare system was seen to be affected by stigma, causing participants to delay contact or be refused services if they do not fit with an expected profile. Participants described a constant negotiation between feeling ‘sick enough’ and ‘not sick enough’ to receive services. Once participants accessed services, they perceived the biomedicalization or trivialization of their challenges to be driven by stigma. Lastly, participants reflected on changes needed to reduce stigma’s effects on seeking and obtaining services. Conclusion A constant negotiation between being ‘sick enough’ or ‘not sick enough’ is a key component of stigma from the perspectives of youth. This tension influences youth decisions about whether to seek services, but also service provider decisions about whether to offer services. Building awareness around the invisibility of mental health challenges and the continuum of wellness to illness may help to break down stigma’s impact as a barrier to service seeking. Early intervention models of care that propose services across the spectrum of challenges may prevent the sense of stigma that deters youth from accessing and continuing to access services.

Background Evidence-based mental health requires patient-relevant outcome data, but many indicators lack clinical meaning and fail to consider youth perceptions. The minimally important change (MIC) indicator designates change as meaningful to patients, yet is rarely reported in youth mental health trials.Objective This study aimed to establish MIC thresholds for two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), using different estimation methods.Methods A sample of 247 youths (14–17 years) completed the CIS and SDQ at baseline and at 6 months in a youth mental health and substance use trial. At 6 months, youths also reported perceived change. Three anchor-based (mean change, receiver operating characteristic analysis, predictive modelling) and three distribution-based methods (0.5 SD, measurement error, smallest detectable change) were compared.Findings Different methods yielded varying MIC thresholds. Predictive modelling provided the most precise anchor-based MIC: −2.6 points (95% CI −3.6, –1.6) for the CIS and −1.7 points (95% CI −2.2, –1.2) for the SDQ, indicating that score improvements of 12% for the CIS and 8% for the SDQ may be perceived as ‘important’ by youths. However, correlations between change score and anchor were below 0.5 for both measures, indicating suboptimal anchor credibility. Stronger correlations between the anchor and T2 PROM scores compared with T1 scores suggest the presence of recall bias. All MIC estimates were smaller than the smallest detectable change.Conclusions Predictive modelling offers the most precise MIC, but limited anchor credibility suggests careful anchor calibration is necessary.Clinical implications Clinicians may consider the MIC CI as indicative of meaningful change when discussing treatment impact with patients.Trial registration number NCT02836080.