Attitudes towards mental illness in Sweden: Adaptation and development of the Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness questionnaire

Abstract

The main purpose for the expansion of supported community care for persons with serious mental illness in Sweden was to ensure the right for these persons to live as citizens in the community. However, earlier research shows that negative attitudes towards mental illness present an obstacle for social integration of persons with serious mental illness. The aim of this study, conducted in Sweden, was to evaluate an existing instrument's (Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness, CAMI), validity and reliability. An additional aim was to adapt and develop the questionnaire to Swedish circumstances. After translation and modification of the original CAMI, the Swedish version of the questionnaire (CAMI-S) was distributed to all student nurses at three different universities in Sweden. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.90 of the original CAMI-S. A corrected inter-item total correlation excluded 20 items because they showed loading <0.43. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient on the 20 items (new CAMI-S) that showed loading, >0.43, was 0.903. A factor analysis of these items revealed that the data could be extracted in three factors labelled as: open-minded and pro-integration, fear and avoidance and community mental health ideology. Finally, in order to reach reliable results in attitude research, it is important to measure the respondent's attitude towards the object in common as well as the respondent's attitude to interact with the object. Accordingly, it is important to add behavioural intention items to the 'new CAMI-S'. Statements exemplifying how something 'ought to be' in an impersonal way have a good degree of stability over time and place.

The effectiveness of an anti-stigma intervention in a basic police officer training programme: a controlled study

“…In the current study a Swedish version was used including 20 items categorized into three factors: “Open minded and pro-integration”, “Fear and avoidance” and “Community mental health ideology” The Swedish version has been tested regarded psychometric properties [28]. The response format of the questionnaire is a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = do not agree to 6 = fully agree.…”

Literasi Kesehatan Mental dan Sikap Komunitas sebagai Prediktor Pencarian Pertolongan Formal

“…Skala sikap komunitas terhadap gangguan mental diadaptasi dari Skala Community Attitude toward Mental Illness (CAMI) yang dikembangkan oleh Högberg et al (2008), yang kemudian di beberapa aitem dimodifikasi sesuai konteks subjek penelitian. Skala ini mengukur evaluasi subjektif individu sebagai bagian dari komunitas terhadap penerimaan atau penolakan terhadap kehadiran orang dengan gangguan mental dan fasilitas layanan kesehatan mental di area tempat tinggal mereka.…”

“…Aspek-aspek dari sikap komunitas terhadap gangguan mental terdiri dari keterbukaan pikiran dan pro-integrasi, takut dan penghindaran, dan ideologi kesehatan mental komunitas (Högberg, Magnusson, Ewertzon, & Lützén, 2008;Taylor & Dear, 1981).…”

Learn and ACT: Changing prejudice towards people with mental illness using stigma reduction interventions

“…By conducting analyses based on a factor structure that was initially hypothesised (e.g., Taylor & Dear, 1981) but not supported (e.g., Högberg et al, 2008;Morris et al, 2012), meaningful changes in attitudes may not be clearly reflected by patterns of change in the factor scores. In other words, if the factor structure of a measure is not sound and replicable, stigma reduction interventions may not be able to demonstrate changes in dimensions of attitudes, even if they exist.…”

“…Many studies use the Community Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill scale (CAMI: Taylor & Dear, 1981), whose four-factor structure has not been reliably replicated across samples (Brockington, Hall, Levings, & Murphy, 1993;Högberg, Magnusson, Ewertzon, & Lützén, 2008;Morris et al, 2012;Sevigny et al, 1999;Wolff, Pathare, Craig, & Leff, 1996). Many scale developers in the area overlook issues of construct validity such as convergent and discriminant validity (see Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), which are key to the development of new measures (e.g., Aromaa, Tolvanen, Tuulari, & Wahlbeck, 2010;Luty, Fekadu, Umoh, & Gallagher, 2006;Svensson et al, 2011).…”