Back

Previous experience with depression in others and self: a cross-sectional study of the impact on stigma and help-seeking attitudes

Conceicao, V. d.; Rothes, I.; Severo, M.; Griffiths, K.; Hegerl, U.; Gusmao, R.

2020-09-16 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2020.05.02.20086140 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundStigma has been considered a significant barrier both in treatment, rehabilitation and help-seeking behaviours of people diagnosed with depression. This study aimed to assess the influence of the type of previous experience with depression on depression stigma, identify the effects of previous experience with depression on stigma and to analyse the effects of stigma on help-seeking attitudes. MethodsA total of 1693 participants with a mean age of 47.2 (SD=18.17) completed the Depression Stigma Scale (DSS), the Attitude Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help (ATSPPH), and a sociodemographic questionnaire. We categorised participants into four comparison groups: no previous experience with depression (n=479), indirect experience with depression (n=661), direct experience with depression (n=137), and both direct and indirect experience with depression (n=416). Data were analysed using SPSS 24.0. ResultsLevels of personal stigma were lower in people who had family and friends experiencing depression in comparison with individuals with no history of depression experience. Better attitudes towards help-seeking were evident in those with lower personal stigma, and worse help-seeking attitudes were associated with higher perceived stigma in the indirect previous experience group. LimitationsDuration of participant exposure to depression was not collected. ConclusionsThe individuals experience with depression influences the development of personal stigmatisation towards depression and plays a role in help-seeking behaviours. Addressing peoples experience of depression might be a practical way of reducing depression stigma and improve help-seeking behaviours.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.