Interlocking oppressions: the effect of a comorbid physical disability on perceived stigma and discrimination among mental health consumers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People living with mental health problems often face stigma and discrimination; however, there is a lack of research that examines how comorbid conditions affect this perceived stigma. This study sought to determine whether people who have a comorbid physical and psychiatric disability experience more stigma than those with only a psychiatric disability. It also looked at how perceived stigma and discrimination affect physical and mental health. A secondary analysis on data from interviews with 336 former and current clients of the mental health system in a mid-size Canadian city in 2005 was performed. Of these, 203 (60.4%) reported they had a psychiatric disability, 112 (33.0%) reported that they had a physical disability, with 74 reporting both a psychiatric and a physical disability. People with a self-reported psychiatric disability and a self-reported comorbid physical disability faced more overall perceived discrimination/stigma (P = 0.04), than those with a psychiatric disability alone. Perceived discrimination/stigma was positively correlated with psychiatric problem severity (P = 0.02), and negatively correlated with self-rated general health (P < 0.001), physical condition (P < 0.001), emotional well-being (P < 0.001) and life satisfaction (P < 0.001). These results bring to light the aggravating effect of a physical disability on the perceived stigma for those living with a mental illness, and also strengthen the knowledge that stigma and discrimination have a negative impact on health. Healthcare providers should recognise this negative impact and screen for these comorbid conditions. Policy-makers should take measures such as improving access to housing and employment services to help reduce stigma and discrimination against this particularly vulnerable group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".