Prevalence and Associated Factors of Bullying Experienced by Community Patients With Serious Mental Disorders: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with serious mental disorders (SMDs) are frequently exposed to bullying, which can severely affect their well-being. However, research on this issue remains limited in the Chinese context. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the prevalence and associated factors of bullying experienced by individuals with SMDs in China, with the goal of providing evidence that may inform strategies to improve their quality of life. METHODS: A multistage stratified random sampling method was used to survey 486 community patients with SMDs in Shandong province, China. Participants self-reported experiences of bullying. The Stigma Scale for Chronic Illnesses, 8-item version was used to measure self-stigma; the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index assessed sleep quality; and the Family Apgar Scale evaluated family functioning. Single-factor analysis, logistic regression, and negative binomial regression were used to analyze the associations between variables. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of bullying experienced by individuals with SMDs was 42.4% (206/486). Higher levels of self-stigma were significantly associated with increased odds of being bullied (odds ratio [OR] 1.041, 95% CI 1.017-1.065; P<.001), while better family functioning was associated with lower odds of experiencing bullying (OR 0.913, 95% CI 0.850-0.980; P=.01). Verbal abuse was associated with poorer sleep quality (OR 1.056, 95% CI 1.004-1.111; P=.04), particularly when reported as perpetrated by caregivers (OR 1.068, 95% CI 1.029-1.108; P<.001). In addition, age (P<.001), education level (P=.02), only-child status (P=.04), and diagnosis type (P=.03) were significantly related to bullying experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of self-stigma were associated with experiencing bullying among individuals with SMDs, whereas better family functioning was associated with lower odds of being bullied. Verbal abuse-especially by caregivers-was associated with poorer sleep quality. These findings suggest that reducing self-stigma and strengthening family support may help improve quality of life for individuals with SMDs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".