The internalization of public stigma by persons with serious mental illnesses may lead to self-stigma, which harms self-esteem, self-efficacy, and empowerment. Previous research has evaluated a hierarchical model that distinguishes among stereotype awareness, agreement, application to self, and harm to self with the 40-item Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale (SSMIS). This study addressed SSMIS critiques (too long, contains offensive items that discourages test completion) by strategically omitting half of the original scale’s items. Here we report reliability and validity of the 20-item short form (SSMIS-SF) based on data from three previous studies. Retained items were rated less offensive by a sample of consumers. Results indicated adequate internal consistencies for each subscale. Repeated measures ANOVAs showed subscale means progressively diminished from awareness to harm. In support of its validity, the harm subscale was found to be inversely and significantly related to self-esteem, self-efficacy, empowerment, and hope. After controlling for level of depression, these relationships remained significant with the exception of the relation between empowerment and harm SSMIS-SF subscale. Future research with the SSMIS-SF should evaluate its sensitivity to change and its stability through test-rest reliability.

Quantitatively-derived, culturally-specific stigma measures were lacking. Further, the vast majority of qualitative studies on stigma were conducted without using stigma-specific frameworks. We propose the 'what matters most' approach to address this key issue in future research.

Suicide rates in the United States have been increasing in recent years, and the period after an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization is one of especially high risk for death by suicide. Peer support specialists may play an important role in addressing recommendations that suicide prevention activities focus on protective factors by improving hope and connectedness. The present study developed a peer specialist intervention titled Peers for Valued Living (PREVAIL) to reduce suicide risk, incorporating components of motivational interviewing and psychotherapies targeting suicide risk into recovery-based peer support. A randomized controlled pilot study was conducted to assess the acceptability, feasibility, and fidelity of the intervention. A total of 70 adult psychiatric inpatients at high risk for suicide were enrolled into the study. Participants were randomized to usual care (n = 36) or to the 12-week PREVAIL peer support intervention (n = 34). Those in the PREVAIL arm completed an average of 6.1 (SD = 5.0) peer sessions over the course of 12 weeks. Fidelity was rated for 20 peer support sessions, and 85% of the peer specialist sessions demonstrated adequate fidelity to administering a conversation tool regarding hope, belongingness, or safety, and 72.5% of general support skills (e.g., validation) were performed with adequate fidelity. Participants’ qualitative responses (n = 23) were highly positive regarding peer specialists’ ability to relate, listen, and advise and to provide support specifically during discussions about suicide. Findings demonstrate that a peer support specialist suicide prevention intervention is feasible and acceptable for patients at high risk for suicide.

This study identified key ingredients of consumer-directed antistigma programs. Part two of the mixed methods design, a quantitative cross-validation study, will yield a sound fidelity measure.

Future research hopes to yield a fidelity measure for contact-based programs.