The Singaporean public beliefs about the causes of mental illness: results from a multi-ethnic population-based study

Pang, Shirlene; Subramaniam, Mythily; Lee, S. P.; Lau, Ying; Abdin, Edimansyah; Chua, Boon Yiang; Vaingankar, Janhavi Ajit; Chong, Siow Ann

doi:10.1017/s2045796017000105

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to socio-demographic and diagnostic correlates of caregivers’ causal attributions, those who were economically inactive (students, homemakers, or retired) were less likely to endorse biological attributions compared to those who were employed. A similar result was found in Pang et al.’s (2017) study among the Singapore general population, whereby those who were unemployed (homemaker/student/retired) were less likely to endorse physical factors (i.e., a virus or other infection, an allergy or reaction) compared to those who were employed. It is possible that those who were employed/economically active had more avenues to access information on mental health (e.g., increased socialization, by word-of-mouth, exposure to mental health awareness campaigns) compared to those who were economically inactive, which could have increased their likelihood of endorsing biological causes, given some evidence linking increased mental health literacy with endorsement of these causes (e.g., Bartlett et al., 2006; Jorm et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2013).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Caregivers’ causal attributions of their relatives’ mental illness and the association with stigma

Sagayadevan¹,

Lau²,

Zhang³

et al. 2019

Transcult Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Causal attributions of mental illness have received substantial attention given their influence on help-seeking patterns of individuals and the level of engagement with health services. Few studies, however, have examined caregivers’ perspectives of their relatives’ illness. The current study aimed to examine caregivers’ causal attributions of their relatives’ mental illness and its association with perceived stigma in a multi-ethnic Asian sample. Primary caregivers ( N = 350) of psychiatric outpatients were recruited from a psychiatric hospital. The attribution and stigma sections of the Family Interview Schedule (FIS) were utilized to obtain caregivers’ causal report of their relatives’ illness and stigma perception. Logistic regressions were performed to examine the socio-demographic and diagnostic correlates of the four categories of causal attributions (psychosocial, biological, drug-/substance use-related, supernatural). The majority of caregivers identified psychosocial causes, followed by biological, supernatural, and lastly drug-/substance use-related causes for their relatives’ illness. Marital status, religion, employment status and the diagnosis of depressive disorders were significant correlates of biological attributions. Ethnicity and not knowing their relatives' diagnosis were significantly associated with psychosocial attributions. For drug-/substance use-related attributions, ethnicity was the only significant correlate. Supernatural attributions did not yield any significant associations. Caregivers who endorsed drug-/substance use-related reasons also reported significantly higher stigma than caregivers who did not endorse these attributions. A tendency to endorse biological and psychosocial causes for their relative’s illness was noted among caregivers. Further research on caregivers’ causal attributions is warranted to account for and replicate current study findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Caregivers’ causal attributions of their relatives’ mental illness and the association with stigma

Sagayadevan¹,

Lau²,

Zhang³

et al. 2019

Transcult Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared to persons with AUD, people with other SUDs or with problem gambling behavior were not considerably different with regard to the public attribution of a “bad character” (Hing et al, 2016; Meurk et al, 2014a, 2014b) or moral weakness (DePierre et al, 2014), with the exception of 2018 US study (AUD: 70.3%, SUD: 52.0%; Perry et al, 2020). Pang et al, (2018, Singapore, study #15) conducted a factor analysis with different causal beliefs and identified a “personality” factor determined by high factor loads on the items “weak character” and “being a nervous person.” More than 80% of respondents endorsed causal attribution to this “personality” factor in alcohol abuse.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stigmatization of people with alcohol use disorders: An updated systematic review of population studies

Kilian

Manthey

Carr

et al. 2021

Alcoholism Clin & Exp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We summarize research on the public stigmatization of persons with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in comparison with other mental health conditions and embed the results into a conceptual framework of the stigma process. Methods We conducted a systematic search using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and PsycINFO (via Ovid), and Web of Science for population‐based studies on the public stigma in AUD and at least 1 other mental health condition, published between October 1, 2010 and December 20, 2020, thus including all studies published since the last systematic review on this topic. The study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020173054). Results We identified 20,561 records, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria, reporting results from 16 unique studies conducted in 9 different countries. Compared to substance‐unrelated mental disorders, persons with AUD were generally less likely to be considered mentally ill, while they were perceived as being more dangerous and responsible for their condition. Further, the public desire for social distance was consistently higher for people with AUD. We found no consistent differences in the public stigma toward persons with AUD in comparison with other substance use disorders. Conclusion The stigmatization of persons with AUD remains comparatively high and is distinct from that of other substance‐unrelated disorders.

show abstract

“…The model suggests that the more people perceive an individual as having control and responsibility over an negative situation, the less sympathetic they feel toward the individual, which reduces prosocial behavior [27]. A local population-based study on causal beliefs of mental illness found that 89.1% of the participants had attributed personality issues (i.e., being a nervous person or having a weak character) as a cause of depression [29]. With such beliefs, it is likely that the students had perceived depression in their peers as a result of their own personality flaw.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary development of a bystander intervention scale for depression and the examination of socio-demographic correlates amongst Singapore university students

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite peer involvement having a positive impact on help-seeking behavior, there is a lack of a scale quantifying the possibility of an individual intervening upon noticing peers who show signs of depression. The aims of this study were to (1) develop a bystander intervention scale for depression that assesses the likelihood of university students intervening when a peer shows signs of depression based on the theory of bystander intervention, (2) identify the underlying factors contributing to the behavior, and (3) explore the socio-demographic correlates of the scale. Methods The proposed scale, the Bystander Intervention Scale for Depression (BISD), is a 17-item self-reported questionnaire that was developed based on existing bystander intervention theory and inputs from mental health experts. Data was collected as part of a larger study to evaluate the effectiveness of an anti-stigma intervention amongst university students from a local university. A total of 392 participants were recruited. Exploratory factor analyses were performed to identify the underlying factor structure. Multiple linear regressions were conducted to explore the socio-demographic correlates of the scale. Result Four key factors were identified for the proposed scale: (1) Awareness of depression among peers; (2) Vigilance towards possible symptoms of depression; (3) Knowledge on how to intervene; (4) Acceptance of responsibility to intervene. Having experience in the mental health field was associated with all factors while having family members or friends with mental illness was associated with all factors except for knowledge on how to intervene. Students of older age were associated with higher vigilance towards possible symptoms of depression and knowledge on how to intervene. Those of non-Chinese ethnicity were associated with acceptance of responsibility to intervene. Conclusion This study provides a preliminary tool to assess bystander intervention in depression amongst university students. This study identifies sub-groups of the student population that require more education to intervene with depressed peers and also informs the development of future strategies.

show abstract

The Singaporean public beliefs about the causes of mental illness: results from a multi-ethnic population-based study

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

Caregivers’ causal attributions of their relatives’ mental illness and the association with stigma

Caregivers’ causal attributions of their relatives’ mental illness and the association with stigma

Stigmatization of people with alcohol use disorders: An updated systematic review of population studies

Preliminary development of a bystander intervention scale for depression and the examination of socio-demographic correlates amongst Singapore university students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About