WPA guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009 the WPA President established a Task Force that was to examine available evidence about the stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists and to make recommendations about action that national psychiatric societies and psychiatrists as professionals could do to reduce or prevent the stigmatization of their discipline as well as to prevent its nefarious consequences. This paper presents a summary of the Task Force's findings and recommendations. The Task Force reviewed the literature concerning the image of psychiatry and psychiatrists in the media and the opinions about psychiatry and psychiatrists of the general public, of students of medicine, of health professionals other than psychiatrists and of persons with mental illness and their families. It also reviewed the evidence about the interventions that have been undertaken to combat stigma and consequent discrimination and made a series of recommendations to the national psychiatric societies and to individual psychiatrists. The Task Force laid emphasis on the formulation of best practices of psychiatry and their application in health services and on the revision of curricula for the training of health personnel. It also recommended that national psychiatric societies establish links with other professional associations, with organizations of patients and their relatives and with the media in order to approach the problems of stigma on a broad front. The Task Force also underlined the role that psychiatrists can play in the prevention of stigmatization of psychiatry, stressing the need to develop a respectful relationship with patients, to strictly observe ethical rules in the practice of psychiatry and to maintain professional competence.
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 | 0.039 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.016 |
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".