ObjectivesTo assess stigma towards people with mental illness among Singapore medical and nursing students using the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), and to examine the relationship of students’ stigmatising attitudes with sociodemographic and education factors.Design and settingCross-sectional study conducted in SingaporeParticipantsThe study was conducted among 1002 healthcare (502 medical and 500 nursing) students during April to September 2016. Students had to be Singapore citizens or permanent residents and enrolled in public educational institutions to be included in the study. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 21.3 (3.3) years, with the majority being females (71.1%). 75.2% of the participants were Chinese, 14.1% were Malays, and 10.7% were either Indians or of other ethnicity.MethodsFactor analysis was conducted to validate the OMS-HC scale in the study sample and to examine its factor structure. Descriptive statistics and multivariate linear regression were used to examine sociodemographic and education correlates.ResultsFactor analysis revealed a three-factor structure with 14 items. The factors were labelled as attitudes towards help-seeking and people with mental illness, social distance and disclosure. Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that medical students were found to be associated with lower total OMS-HC scores (P<0.05), less negative attitudes (P<0.001) and greater disclosure (P<0.05) than nursing students. Students who had a monthly household income of below S$4000 had more unfavourable attitudes than those with an income of SGD$10 000 and above (P<0.05). Having attended clinical placement was associated with more negative attitudes (P<0.05) among the students.ConclusionHealthcare students generally possessed positive attitudes towards help-seeking and persons with mental illness, though they preferred not to disclose their own mental health condition. Academic curriculum may need to enhance the component of mental health training, particularly on reducing stigma in certain groups of students.

BackgroundWhile many studies have explored the concept and correlates of stigma towards individuals with mental illness, few have investigated the role of personality in this process. In the current study, we firstly examined the relationship between personality and stigma towards mental illness; and then explored the moderating effects of personality traits on the relationship between contact experience/s and stigma.MethodsParticipants were recruited from public medical (N = 502) and nursing schools (N = 500) from April to September 2016 in Singapore for this cross-sectional survey, and they were randomly assigned to a vignette describing one of the following mental disorders: major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, alcohol abuse, schizophrenia, and dementia. Stigma was measured by the ‘Personal and Perceived scales of the Depression Stigma Scale’ and the ‘Social Distance Scale’. These scales together had a 3-factor structure based on a previous national study in Singapore, namely ‘weak-not-sick’, ‘dangerous/unpredictable’ and ‘social distance’. Personality was measured by the 20-item short form of the International Personality Item Pool-five factor model measure.ResultsRegression suggested agreeableness and openness to experience were negatively associated with all three domains of stigma. ‘Weak-not-sick’ and extraversion were positively associated; and ‘social distance’ was positively associated with higher scores on conscientiousness and neuroticism. Both close- and non-close contact were associated with more positive attitudes towards mental illness among the participants. Openness to experience moderated the relationships of close contact experience with ‘weak-not-sick’ and ‘dangerous/unpredictable’, but in different directions. The association between close contact and ‘social distance’ were moderated by agreeableness.ConclusionsUnlike non-close contact experience, close contact with people with mental illness worked differently on stigma for individuals with different personality traits. Future studies are needed to further explore the underlying mechanisms for such differences.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1932-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Stigma towards people with mental disorders is highly prevalent and often leads to negative impact on their lives (Alonso et al., 2008;Corrigan and Watson, 2006). According to The World Health Organization ( 2001), stigma signifies a 'mark of shame, disgrace, or disapproval'. The negative consequences of stigmatizing attitudes include 'being rejected, discriminated against and excluded from participating in a number of different areas of society'. Furthermore, being stigmatized not only affects the psychological well-being and development of people with mental disorders, but also acts as a significant barrier to seeking, accessing and adherence to treatment (Link and Phelan, 2006).Prior research studies have generally revealed continued misconceptions about mental disorders amongst various populations. In their review of population studies, Angermeyer and Dietrich (2006) found that a significant proportion of the public were unable to recognize specific mental disorders and their respective causes. They also perceived people with mental disorders as unpredictable and dangerous. These perceptions contributed to increasing desire to distance themselves from people with mental disorders. Notably, research has also shown the presence of a hierarchy of stigma within mental disorders diagnoses where more stigmatizing attitudes are directed towards people with schizophrenia as compared to other mental disorders such as mood or anxiety disorders (Griffiths et al., 2006).Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders are not restricted to only uninformed members of the general public. Healthcare professionals also endorse stereotypical beliefs about people with mental disorders (Jorm et al., 1999;Ross and Goldner, 2009). These stigmatizing attitudes amongst mental healthcare professionals can act as barriers to those seeking treatment and hence need to be broken down. Essentially, healthcare professionals, especially nurses, play a key role in the mental healthcare system (Harborne and Jones, 2008). Being on the frontline of healthcare, they are responsible for the bulk of direct care for patients (Baker, Richards, and Campbell, 2005) and have a profound effect on the therapeutic relationship as well as treatment outcomes of patients with whom they interact. Furthermore, given their high contact and experience with patients, nurses are well positioned to ameliorate stigmatizing attitudes amongst the public

Background The reluctance of young adults to seek mental health treatment has been attributed to poor mental health literacy, stigma, preference for self-reliance and concerns about confidentiality. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential impact of an anti-stigma intervention that includes education about depression, information about help-seeking as well as contact with a person with lived experience, on help seeking attitudes. Methods A pre-post study design was employed. Changes in help-seeking attitudes were measured using the Inventory of Attitudes towards Seeking Mental Health Services (IASMHS) immediately post-intervention and after 3 months. Sociodemographic data, information on past experiences in the mental health field and contact with people with mental illness were collated. Three hundred ninety university students enrolled in the study. Linear mixed models were used to examine the effects of the intervention. Results Scores on all subscales of the IASMHS, Psychological Openness (PO), Help-seeking Propensity (HP) and Indifference to Stigma improved significantly post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up compared to pre-intervention, with HP demonstrating the highest effect size. However, a significant decline was observed on all three scales at 3-month follow-up compared to post-intervention. Gender, having friends/family with mental illness, and previous experience in the mental health field moderated the intervention effects for the PO and HP subscales. Conclusion The study showed that the brief anti-stigma intervention was associated with improvements in help-seeking attitudes among university students with differential effects among certain sub-groups. As the beneficial outcomes appeared to decrease over time, booster sessions or opportunities to participate in mental health-related activities post-intervention may be required to maintain the desired changes in help-seeking attitudes.

This study examined differences between young people with mental illness who engage in deliberate self-harm with and without suicidal intent, as well as socio-demographic and clinical factors that are related to the increased likelihood of suicide attempt amongst self-harming young people. A total of 235 outpatients with mental illness who had engaged in deliberate self-harm were recruited from a tertiary psychiatric hospital in Singapore. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire which collected information on their socio-demographic background, self-harm history, diagnosis, depressive symptoms and childhood trauma. A total of 31.1% had reported a history of attempted suicide. Multiple logistic regression conducted found that engaging in self-harm ideation between 1 and 7 days (OR = 4.3, p = 0.30), and more than 1 week (OR = 10.5, p < 0.001) (versus no engagement in any self-harm ideation at all), were significantly associated with greater likelihood of attempted suicide. This study reports a relatively high prevalence rate of reported suicide attempts amongst young people with mental illness who engaged in self-harm. Identifying self-harm behaviors and treating it early could be the first step in managing potential suicidal behaviors among those who engage in self-harm.