RETRACTED: Family Members’ Perspectives on Mental Illness Stigma: A Community Study
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe literature on mental illnesses demonstrates the complex vulnerabilities that individuals with mental disorders face in their daily interactions with the public, given the frequent stigma associated with mental health problems. We focused on family members’ perspectives on mental illness stigma and ways to reduce it. MethodsWe employed a narrative inquiry to understand participants’ views on mental illness stigma and ways to ameliorate it from the perspective of 15 immediate family members of persons with mental illness. Data analysis was guided by Braun and Clarke's technique for thematic analysis. ResultsThe narrative accounts of participants were categorized using two broad themes: mental illness stigma in action and addressing stigma as a society. Participants’ reflections on mental illness stigma were based on their professional experiences, conversations within their families, and their awareness of the stigma associated with mental illness within the broader social realm, as well as recent campaigns toward reducing the stigma of mental illness. They described stigma as a ‘mark of shame’ that translates into discriminatory behaviors and actions toward persons with mental illness, and called for structural reforms to curb this stigma. The promotion of positive mental health and mental illness awareness is necessary for reducing all forms of mental illness-related stigma. ConclusionParticipants advocated the need for equal attention to both preventive and therapeutic healthcare delivery, particularly within the mental health system. Moving forward, policies, interventions, and well-coordinated programs towards reducing social mental illness stigma are key to ensuring inclusiveness at both the family and societal levels.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".