The internalized stigma experienced by members of a mental health advocacy group in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is a growing literature on internalized stigma from the developed world, very little research has been conducted in developing countries such as South Africa. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the internalized stigma experienced by members of a mental health advocacy group in South Africa and relationships between self-stigma and other constructs, namely, empowerment, perceived devaluation and discrimination. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires measuring respondents reported levels of internalized stigma, empowerment and perceived devaluation and discrimination were distributed to all the members of the South African Depression & Anxiety Group (SADAG) by post and via email. Of the 850 members invited to participate, 142 members of SADAG completed the questionnaire. Pearson correlations were computed and multiple regression analyses were carried out to analyse the data. RESULTS: The highest reports of stigma were for stigma resistance (mean = 2.9), alienation (mean = 2.47) and perceived discrimination (mean = 2.24). Low levels of stereotype endorsement (mean = 1.77) and social withdrawal (mean = 1.22) were reported. Although respondents often felt that the public held negative attitudes towards individuals suffering with a mental illness (perceived devaluation and discrimination scale (PDD), mean = 2.95), a majority of respondents reported high levels of empowerment (mean = 3.0) and self-efficacy (mean = 2.47). After controlling for socio-demographic factors, higher scores on the PDD were associated with social withdrawal and having experienced discrimination. CONCLUSION: Internalization of stigma, disempowerment and loss of self-esteem are not inevitable consequences for all individuals with a mental illness. Nevertheless, perceived stigma is significantly associated with social withdrawal and experienced discrimination.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".