MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008202909 · doi:10.4103/0019-5545.111459

Clinical risk of stigma and discrimination of mental illnesses: Need for objective assessment and quantification

2013· article· en· W2008202909 on OpenAlexaff
Amresh Shrivastava, Y Bureau, Nitika Rewari, Megan Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLawson Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)HarmPsychologyPsychiatryMental healthMental illnessIntervention (counseling)PerceptionClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stigma and discrimination continue to be a reality in the lives of people suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, and prove to be one of the greatest barriers to regaining a normal lifestyle and health. Research advances have defined stigma and assessed its implications and have even examined intervention strategies for dealing with stigma. We are of the opinion that stigma is a potential clinical risk factor. It delays treatment seeking, worsens course and outcome, reduces compliance, and increases the risk of relapse; causing further disability, discrimination, and isolation even in persons who have accessed mental health services. The delay in treatment due to stigma causes potential complications like suicide, violence, harm to others, and deterioration in capacity to look after one's physical health. These are preventable clinical complications. In order to deal with the impact of stigma on an individual basis, it needs to be (i) assessed during routine clinical examination, (ii) assessed for quantification in order to obtain measurable objective deliverables, and (iii) examined if treatment can reduce stigma and its impact on individuals. New and innovative anti-stigma programs are required that are clinically driven in order to see the change in life of an individual by removing potential risks. The basic requirement for dealing with an individual's stigma perception/experience is its proper assessment for origin and impact in both a qualitative and quantitative manner. We further argue that quantification would allow for regular assessment and offer more effective intervention for patients. It will also be helpful in identifying modifiable social factors to enhance quality of care planning for management in hospitals and communities. The objective of quantification is to facilitate developing an approach to bring the assessment of stigma into clinical work and formulating customized strategies to deal with stigma at the patient level. It would be expected that the assessment of stigma would become a part of routine clinical assessment to identify barriers to outcome. This article discusses the need for quantification of patients' experiences of mental illness stigma.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.226
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.226
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.015
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207