Stigmatization of psychiatric and justice-involved populations during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Psychiatric and justice-involved populations are known to be stigmatized and particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes during COVID-19. The increased attention toward vulnerable populations from healthcare authorities, the media, and the general public has made it critical to uncover any developing stigmatization toward these groups and the possible consequences. The prioritization of public safety and shift in the prioritization of resource allocation and service delivery could lead to a rise in negative perceptions toward these already stigmatized groups. Thus, it is imperative to consider how the unique characteristics of vulnerable groups may impact their physical and mental health as well as their care during this pandemic. In this paper, we describe the challenges that psychiatric, correctional, and forensic psychiatry populations have faced during COVID-19 and how a rise in stigmatization could lead to adverse outcomes. Specifically, we outline the influence of the media on public perceptions and how stigmatization may be reflected in the allocation of resources, policies, and related decision-making during COVID-19.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Eating Disorders: What Can We Learn About Psychopathology and Treatment? A Systematic Review

“…Finally, treatment-related data revealed a sort of self-stigma given that many patients reported feelings of guilt or being undeserving of treatment in comparison to the need of physical healthcare due to the COVID-19 disease. This is in line with the internalized stigma seen in individuals with EDs [ 68 ] and with stigma-related data for other psychiatric conditions collected during the pandemic [ 69 ] and may contribute to worsen the renowned unmet treatment needs among people with EDs [ 70 ].…”

Scoping review of mental health in prisons through the COVID-19 pandemic

“…The majority of papers were opinion pieces, with the exception of 10 case studies, [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] seven guidelines, 13-16 40-42 six literature reviews, [43][44][45][46][47][48] five qualitative studies, [49][50][51][52][53] three cross-sectional studies, [54][55][56] three briefings, [57][58][59] three case studies 37 39 60 and one study protocol. 61 All assessed studies were found to be of poor quality (see online supplemental appendix 3).…”

COVID-19: Herausforderungen für forensische Therapie und Behandlungsqualität in Einrichtungen des Maßregelvollzuges

“…Dies gemahnt im Hinblick auf die Sicherung der Behandlungsqualität und die Wahrung der Interessen und Rechte dieser auch in der psychiatrischen Fachwelt marginalisierten und stigmatisierten Patientengruppe zu besonderer Wachsamkeit und Vorsicht. Infolge einer rezessionsbedingten Verknappung wirtschaftlicher Ressourcen, die für Erhaltung und Ausbau öffentlich finanzierter forensisch-therapeutischer Behandlungseinrichtungen bereitgestellt werden, ist zu befürchten, dass in der Öffentlichkeit die „Sicherung“ psychisch erkrankter Rechtsbrecher gegenüber Behandlungsaufträgen an Gewicht gewinnen könnte [ 1 ]. Andererseits stellt eine zunehmende Nutzung digitaler Kommunikationsmittel im forensischen Kontext eine besondere Herausforderung dar.…”