Comparison of stigmatizing experiences between <scp>C</scp>anadian and <scp>K</scp>orean patients with depression and bipolar disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stigma is one of the key barriers to mental health services, and there have been growing efforts to develop antistigma programs. However, little research has been done on quantifying experiences of stigma and their psychosocial impacts in the perspectives of those who suffer from mental illnesses. It is essential to develop an instrument that quantifies the extent and impact of stigma. Therefore, we conducted a study to conduct a field test on The Inventory of Stigmatizing Experiences and measure the difference in perceived stigma and its psychosocial impacts on Korean and Canadian patients with depression and bipolar disorders. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison study was conducted. Data collection took place at a tertiary care hospital located in Seoul, South Korea. Data for the Canadian patient group were retrieved from a previous study conducted by Lazowski et al. RESULTS: In total, 214 Canadian and 51 Korean individuals with depression and bipolar disorder participated. Canadian participants reported significantly higher experience with stigma (P<0.05) and its impact (P<0.05) compared with Korean participants. Both subscales of the inventory (the Stigma Experiences Scale and the Stigma Impact Scale) were highly reliable, with reliability coefficients of 0.81 and 0.93, respectively. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, there seems to be higher level of stigma and impact in the Canadian population compared with the Korean population. These differences in stigma experience and their impact in different populations suggest the need to develop more tailored antistigma programs. The Inventory of Stigmatizing Experiences is a highly reliable instrument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".