Exploring Mechanisms of Mental Illness Stigma Reduction in Asian Canadian Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Although there is evidence of effective stigma reduction by various psychological and educational interventions, the mechanisms of change remain unclear. In this article, we examine hypothesized processes that might have mediated reductions in stigma observed among Asian men who had received in mental health promotion interventions in Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Method: Our sample consisted of 495 Asian men, who received either acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; n = 133), contact-based empowerment education (CEE; n = 149), combination of ACT and CEE ( n = 152), or psychoeducation ( n = 61). Group differences on intervention outcomes, including stigmatizing attitudes (Community Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill), internalized stigma (Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness), valued living (Valued Living Questionnaire), and attitudes to engage in social change (Social Justice Scale) were hypothesized to be due to the impact of the different interventions and mediated by changes in specific underlying psychological processes. These process-related changes were modelled using measures of mindfulness (Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory), psychological flexibility (Acceptance and Action Questionnaire version II), and empowerment (Empowerment Scale [ES]). Their pre- and post changes were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance, and mediational analyses were performed. Results: Findings from mediational analyses suggest that empowerment (ES) mediated a significant portion of the effects observed in reduction in stigmatizing attitudes and internalized stigma across intervention groups ( t = 3.67 to 3.78 for CEE groups, and t = 4.32 to 4.56 for ACT groups). For the ACT groups, reduction in internalized stigma might also have been partly mediated by psychological flexibility, an intervention-specific psychological process. Conclusions: Results from the current study suggest that different stigma reduction interventions may be mediated by increased empowerment as a common mechanism of change, while intervention-specific mechanism of change, improved psychological flexibility through ACT, may also contribute to improvement in internalized 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".