Effects of a Documentary Film on Public Stigma Related to Mental Illness Among Genetic Counselors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people, including genetic counselors, have been found to hold stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illnesses. We aimed to determine whether these attitudes could be changed by exposing genetic counselors and genetic counseling students to a documentary film about people with mental illness. We screened the documentary at the 2010 North American conferences for genetic counselors. Immediately before (T1), immediately after (T2), and one month after (T3) watching the documentary, participants self-rated their comfort with asking patients about mental illness, and they completed scales measuring two aspects of stigma: stereotype endorsement, and desire for social distance. A total of 87 T1 and T2 questionnaires, and 39 T3 questionnaires were returned. At T2 and T3, 34.5% and 48.7% respectively reported feeling more comfortable to ask patients about mental illness. Scores on the social distance and stereotype endorsement scales decreased significantly from T1 to T2, but returned to initial levels at T3. The findings suggest the documentary increased genetic counselors' and genetic counseling students' comfort with asking about mental illness and temporarily decreased their stigmatizing attitudes.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".