Mental illness-related stigma, including that which exists in the healthcare system and among healthcare providers, creates serious barriers to access and quality care. It is also a major concern for healthcare practitioners themselves, both as a workplace culture issue and as a barrier for help seeking. This article provides an overview of the main barriers to access and quality care created by stigmatization in healthcare, a consideration of contributing factors, and a summary of Canadian-based research into promising practices and approaches to combatting stigma in healthcare environments.

BackgroundDiminishing stigmatization for those with mental illnesses by health care providers (HCPs) is becoming a priority for programming and policy, as well as research. In order to be successful, we must accurately measure stigmatizing attitudes and behaviours among HCPs. The Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) was developed to measure stigma in HCP populations. In this study we revisit the factor structure and the responsiveness of the OMS-HC in a larger, more representative sample of HCPs that are more likely to be targets for anti-stigma interventions.MethodsBaseline data were collected from HCPs (n = 1,523) during 12 different anti-stigma interventions across Canada. The majority of HCPs were women (77.4%) and were either physicians (MDs) (41.5%), nurses (17.0%), medical students (13.4%), or students in allied health programs (14.0%). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using complete pre-test (n = 1,305) survey data and responsiveness to change analyses was examined with pre and post matched data (n = 803). The internal consistency of the OMS-HC scale and subscales was evaluated using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The scale’s sensitivity to change was examined using paired t-tests, effect sizes (Cohen’s d), and standardized response means (SRM).ResultsThe EFA favored a 3-factor structure which accounted for 45.3% of the variance using 15 of 20 items. The overall internal consistency for the 15-item scale (α = 0.79) and three subscales (α = 0.67 to 0.68) was acceptable. Subgroup analysis showed the internal consistency was satisfactory across HCP groups including physicians and nurses (α = 0.66 to 0.78). Evidence for the scale’s responsiveness to change occurred across multiple samples, including student-targeted interventions and workshops for practicing HCPs. The Social Distance subscale had the weakest level of responsiveness (SRM ≤ 0.50) whereas the more attitudinal-based items comprising the Attitude (SRM ≤ 0.91) and Disclosure and Help-seeking (SRM ≤ 0.68) subscales had stronger responsiveness.ConclusionsThe OMS-HC has shown to have acceptable internal consistency and has been successful in detecting positive changes in various anti-stigma interventions. Our results support the use of a 15-item scale, with the calculation of three sub scores for Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking, and Social Distance.

No abstract

Objective As part of its ongoing effort to combat stigma against mental illness among health care providers, the Mental Health Commission of Canada partnered with organizations conducting anti-stigma interventions. Our objective was to evaluate program effectiveness and to better understand what makes some programs more effective than others. Our paper reports the elements of these programs found to be most strongly associated with favourable outcomes. Methods Our study employed a multi-phased, mixed-methods design. First, a grounded theory qualitative study was undertaken to identify key program elements. Next, each program ( n = 22) was coded according to the presence or absence of the identified key program ingredients. Then, random-effects, meta-regression modelling was used to examine the association between program outcomes and the key ingredients. Results The qualitative analysis led to a 6-ingredient model of key program elements. Results of the quantitative analysis showed that programs that included all 6 of these ingredients performed significantly better than those that did not. Individual analyses of each of the 6 ingredients showed that including multiple forms of social contact and emphasizing recovery were characteristics of the most effective programs. Conclusions The results provide a validation of a 6-ingredient model of key program elements for anti-stigma programming for health care providers. Emphasizing recovery and including multiple types of social contact are of particular importance for maximizing the effectiveness of anti-stigma programs for health care providers.

The process model developed through this research may function as a tool to help guide the development and implementation of antistigma programmes in healthcare contexts.