LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Should we be concerned about stigma and discrimination in people at risk for psychosis? A systematic review

Photo by cieloadentro from unsplash

Abstract Background Previous studies have provided initial evidence that people at risk for psychosis (PR) suffer from stigma and discrimination related to their condition. However, no study has systematically reviewed… Click to show full abstract

Abstract Background Previous studies have provided initial evidence that people at risk for psychosis (PR) suffer from stigma and discrimination related to their condition. However, no study has systematically reviewed stigma and discrimination associated with being at PR and the potential underlying mechanisms. Methods This work aimed to systematically review all studies addressing stigma and discrimination in PR people in order to assess: (1) the occurrence of this phenomenon and its different components (public, internalized, perceived, and labeling-related), (2) whether stigma affects outcomes of the PR state, and (3) whether other factors modulate stigma among PR individuals. Results The reviewed studies (n = 38) widely differ in their design, methodological quality, and populations under investigation, thus limiting direct comparison of findings. However, converging evidence suggests that the general public endorses stigmatizing attitudes towards PR individuals, and that this is more frequent in people with a low educational level or with no direct experience of the PR state. PR individuals experience more internalized stigma and perceive more discrimination than healthy subjects or patients with non-psychotic disorders. Further, PR labeling is equally associated with both positive (e.g. validation and relief) and negative effects (e.g. status loss and discrimination). Moreover, stigma increases the likelihood of poor outcome, transition to full-psychosis, disengagement from services, and family stigma among PR individuals. Finally, very limited evidence awaiting replication supports the efficacy of cognitive therapies in mitigating the negative effects of stigma. Conclusions Evidence confirms previous concerns about stigma and its negative consequences for PR individuals, thus having important public health implications.

Keywords: people risk; discrimination people; risk psychosis; stigma discrimination; discrimination

Journal Title: Psychological Medicine
Year Published: 2020

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.