Effects of Rehabilitation Models on Self-Stigma among Persons with Mental Illness

Abstract

Social stigma is inevitable for mentally ill patients, but how patients treat themselves is a priority for rehabilitation and an important buffer mechanism. This study thus aimed to measure the effectiveness of rehabilitation models for improving self-stigma. This quasi-experimental research design applied purposeful sampling. The participants (n = 250) were persons with mental illness who received rehabilitation treatment in central Taiwan. They were divided into community- (n = 170) and institution-based (n = 80) rehabilitation groups. The Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Scale was evaluated at the time of recruitment, and a follow-up was conducted after 1 and 3 months. A generalized estimation equation was used in data analysis to measure whether self-stigma improved with the rehabilitation model and time, and to test the effect of different rehabilitation models on participants’ self-stigma improvement. The study found that the self-stigma of patients receiving CBR improved more than that of those receiving IBR when behavioral problems, education, OT level, sex, and first-time self-stigma were controlled. Returning to the community is the goal of rehabilitation for patients with mental illness, but IBR still dominates the rehabilitation model in Taiwan. Thus, it is necessary to continue promoting CBR plans for future mental health policies.

The association of social support and hope with self‐stigma and perceived recovery among people with schizophrenia: The serial mediation effect

“…The sample size needed for serial mediation was calculated using the Monte Carlo Power Analysis webpage (Schoemann et al., 2017). Referencing the correlation coefficients reported in previous studies, the correlation coefficients between self‐stigma and social support, between self‐stigma and perceived hope, between self‐stigma and perceived recovery, between social support and perceived hope, between social support and perceived recovery, and between perceived hope and perceived recovery were set to −.353 (Li et al., 2021), −0.582 (Lim et al., 2020), 0.560 (Lim et al., 2020), 0.219 (Mutschler et al., 2022), and 0.641 (Sari et al., 2021), respectively; referencing previous relevant studies that used the tools expected to be employed in this study, the standard deviations for self‐stigma, social support, perceived hope and perceived recovery were set to 10.83 (Lin et al., 2022), 15.48 (Prabhakaran et al., 2021), 5.02 (Lim et al., 2020), and 9.04 (Yang & Lo, 2017), respectively. The calculation by the webpage indicated that when the sample size was 110, the power was 0.97.…”