Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Stigma and Self-Stigma Scales For Attitudes To
The Stigma and Self-Stigma Scales For Attitudes To
net/publication/361704729
The Stigma and Self-Stigma Scales for attitudes to mental health problems:
Psychometric properties and its relationship to mental health problems and
absenteeism
CITATIONS READS
3 575
5 authors, including:
Robert Snowden
Cardiff University
199 PUBLICATIONS 7,936 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Snowden on 12 September 2022.
General
The Stigma and Self-Stigma scales (SASS) measure multiple aspects of stigmatic beliefs
about mental health problems, including cognitive aspects of stigma towards others
(Stigma to Others) and emotional stigma toward others (Social Distance), anticipated
stigma by others, self-stigma, avoidant coping strategies, and help-seeking intentions,
alongside an index of social desirability. The properties of the SASS were investigated by
employees of a large UK government organization. With minor exceptions, each of the
SASS scales had strong psychometric properties, good internal reliability, and test-retest
reliability. Social Distance, Anticipated Stigma, Self-Stigma, and Avoidant Coping were all
strongly associated with a lack of help-seeking for mental health problems. Similarly,
Stigma to Others, Self-Stigma, and Avoidant Coping were all associated with current
mental health problems. Finally, absenteeism from the workplace was found to be
negatively related to Stigma to Others, and positively related to Avoidant Coping and
Anticipated Stigma. In conclusion, the SASS was able to measure several different forms
of stigma about mental health simultaneously in people both with and without a history
of mental health problems. The SASS can be used to monitor changes in mental health
attitudes outcomes following intervention programs to investigate stigmatic attitudes to
mental health problems across different samples.
a Corresponding author:
R. J Snowden, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales.
snowden@cardiff.ac.uk or snowden@caerdydd.ac.uk
The Stigma and Self-Stigma Scales for attitudes to mental health problems: Psychometric properties and its relationship...
“Anticipated stigma” is the belief that other people will None of the existing measures of mental health stigma give
discriminate against you if you have a mental health prob- separate estimates of stigma to others (in both cognitive
lem20 and is also referred to as “perceived public stigma”.21 and affective forms), anticipated stigma, and self-stigma.
Clement et al.16 identified two studies and found no rela- Third, the measures vary with respect to the specificity
tionship between anticipated stigma and help-seeking be- of the mental disorder.30 Some are designed to measure
havior. Fox, Smith, and Vogt22 found that anticipated attitudes to a specific mental disorder (e.g. schizophrenia)
stigma had a significant effect on levels of absenteeism. while others are for mental health problems as a whole. Fox
However, Fox et al. conducted their research within a sam- et al.22 suggested that considering mental health stigma
ple of U.S. veterans and, consequently, their results may not variables more generally results in a better understanding
be generalisable to other populations with less severe men- of commonalities of mental health stigma (see also Van
tal health difficulties. Schomerus et al.19 failed to find an Brakel31).
effect of levels of anticipated stigma on willingness to seek Fourth, some measures were designed for people who
psychiatric help. have, or have had, a mental health problem. However, all in-
“Self-stigma” refers to a person’s belief about themselves dividuals can be affected by mental health difficulties, and
if they have, or were to have, a mental health problem14 and placing experience of mental health on a continuum, rather
can be thought of as the internalisation of public stigma.14 than into two dichotomous categories (i.e. mentally ill vs.
Jennings et al.23 found that self-stigma was related to low mentally well), is related to a reduction in stigmatising be-
levels of help-seeking intentions in students, while Conner liefs.32 Schibalski et al.33 suggested that considering how
et al.24 showed similar results for older adults. The meta- individuals with sub-clinical mental disorders identify with
analysis of Clement et al.16 examined seven studies on this stigmatising views can lead to a better understanding of dif-
issue and found overall a “small negative relationship” be- ferent forms of mental health stigma.
tween self-stigma and help-seeking behavior. Fifth, measures of stigma may not be answered honestly
“Avoidant coping” is the deliberate ignoring of problems, as individuals may be hesitant to endorse stigmatic be-
or the use of maladaptive coping strategies such as the use liefs.34 This desire to present oneself positively is known
or abuse of alcohol or other substances, to block out neg- as “positive impression management” or “social desirability
ative thoughts or emotions.25 Although avoidant coping is bias” and can lead to false or incorrect responses.35 Ensur-
not a form of “stigma” it is clearly an important concept ing anonymity is one way to reduce social desirability bias,
in understanding help-seeking behaviour for mental health but it may be prudent to measure this.35
difficulties, the maintenance of mental health problems,
and absenteeism from work. Currently there is little ev- 1.3. THE PRESENT STUDY
idence on the relationship between avoidant coping and
help-seeking behaviour for mental health problems.26 The Stigma and Self-Stigma Scale (SASS) was created as a
However, there is evidence that avoidant coping strategies questionnaire that could separately measure these differ-
affect absenteeism. For instance, van Rhenen, Schaufeli, ent forms of mental health stigma. It was designed to look
van Dijk, and Blonk27 examined over 3,500 employees over at mental health problems in general and was applicable to
a 12-month period and found that an avoidant coping style both those with or without a history of mental health prob-
increased both the frequency and the length of sickness ab- lems. Its principal aim was to have an efficient single mea-
sence. sure rather than a range of questionnaires to measure the
To define these different concepts of stigma we have pre- different concepts (with associated different response for-
sented them separately. We also acknowledge that this list mats etc.) in order to evaluate a workplace mental health
is not exhaustive and alternate views of mental health literacy and stigma reduction programme for the workplace
stigma exist. However, these concepts are highly connected. (Prevail – see Gray, Davies & Snowden36). The present
For instance, Lannin et al.21 have developed that Inter- study evaluated: (a) its psychometric properties, (b) its re-
nalised Stigma Model and showed that anticipated stigma lationship to current mental health status, and (2) its rela-
(or perceived public stigma as they refer to the concept) tionship to recent absenteeism (due to physical and mental
is internalised to self-stigma which in turn is predictive of health problems).
help-seeking behaviors, particularly through stigma that is
associated help-seeking behaviour itself. It was not the aim 2. METHOD
of this paper to explore these relationships or test the Inter-
nalised Stigma model.
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
1.2. MEASURES OF MENTAL HEALTH STIGMA
The ***** (****) is a UK government organisation that
While there are several measures of mental health stigma17 ********** records. Possible participants were selected by
there were reasons for the creation of a new measure. First, the Human Resources Department to obtain approximately
Wei, McGrath, Hayden, and Kutcher28 noted that few stud- equal numbers across employees across age groups, gender,
ies reported on the psychometric properties– a position and history of mental health problems. Over one thousand
noted earlier by Brohan, Slade, Clement, and Thornicroft29 (N = 1235) individuals were contacted, of which and 377
who also noted many had floor or ceiling effects. Second, took part. Data from the first 196 participants were used
most measures look at one specific form of stigma (e.g. for development of the measure. The other 181 participants
stigma to others) or confound the different forms of stigma. took part in the main study. The study was then advertised
across the agency resulting in an additional 147 partici- person significant distress or impairment of personal function
pants (total N =328; 37.5% male) for the main study. One ing”.
hundred and thirteen participants repeated the question- Participants were asked to indicate if they agreed or dis-
naire approximately four weeks later in order to assess test- agreed with each of the statements using a 5-point Likert
retest reliability. Ethics approval was given by the *** Uni- scale ranging from 'strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree
versity ethical committee. All participants gave written nor disagree, agree, strongly agree’ scored from 0 to 4. Some
informed consent. terms were reverse scored to prevent response bias. Each
scale had a possible range of 0-24 with higher scores repre-
2.2. MATERIALS senting greater stigma or problems. The full questionnaire
is included in the Supplementary Materials.
2.2.1. STIGMA AND SELF-STIGMA SCALES (SASS)
2.2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND WORK PERFORMANCE
This final version of the SASS was developed from an earlier
version. For this original version, the items for the scales of Participants completed a questionnaire related to demo-
Stigma to Others, Self-stigma, and Anticipated Stigma, and graphic information, their history of mental health prob-
Help-Seeking/Disclosure were chosen by the research team lems, and any absence from work due to physical or mental
after reviewing many previous scales that aimed to mea- health problems. The number of days absent in the past
sure these concepts. Items were rewritten to be answerable year was assessed separately for both mental and physical
by people both with and without a history of mental health problems (see Goetzel et al.37), with options of none, one,
problems. Items were also chosen to produce a scale related two to three, four to ten, eleven to twenty, twenty-one to
to willingness to disclose mental health difficulties and the thirty, or more than thirty. Participants were asked if they
amount of help-seeking a person would engage within for had ever given a physical health reason for an absence when
these problems. Finally, items were added to produce a So- the real reason was a mental health problem, and vice versa.
cial Desirability scale. All items were reviewed by a research
team which consisted of a Clinical and Forensic psycholo- 2.2.3 MEASURES OF MENTAL HEALTH
gist, a Forensic psychologist, a Human Resources director,
and an MSc-by-Research student. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a 9-item tool
This initial version underwent an exploratory factor that assesses major depression.38 It scores each of the nine
analysis using Principle Axis Factoring with Oblimin rota- items from 0-3. A score of ‘0’ indicates ‘not at all’ and a
tion and Kaiser Normalization with a pilot sample of par- score of 3 indicates ‘nearly every day.’ In the present study,
ticipants (N = 194). The 10 items from the Social Desir- Cronbach’s α was .91.
ability were not included in this analysis as they are not The Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 Item Scale (GAD-7)
related to mental health attitudes. The scree plot suggested is a 7-item scale that assesses generalised anxiety disor-
five factors that explained 43.5% of the variance. Bartlett’s der39 with the same scoring structure as the PHQ-9. In the
test of sphericity was significant, χ2 (1081) = 4571.62, p present study, Cronbach’s α was .93.
< .001. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure verified the sam- Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) is a 5-item
pling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .88. The five factors measure of impairment in functioning.40 Each item is rated
were interpretable broadly along the intended lines. Factor from 0 to 8 (0 represents no impairment at all and 8 rep-
1 contained items from both the Anticipated Stigma and resents very severe impairment). Items measures partici-
Self-stigma scales. Factor 2 contained items from the pants’ abilities to complete everyday activities, ability to
Stigma to Others scales, as did Factor 4. These two factors work, home management, social leisure activities, private
differed in the items loaded onto Factor four appeared to be leisure activities, and close relationships. In the present
those relating to “social distance” (see Introduction). Factor study, Cronbach’s α was .89.
3 contained items from the Help-seeking/disclosure scale.
Finally, Factor 5 appeared to contain items which we inter- 2.3. STATISTICAL ANALYSES
preted as an “avoidant coping” style.
Following this initial analysis, items that did not load The psychometric properties of the SASS were assessed via
onto the correct scales, or showed poor psychometric prop- a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, internal reliability (using
erties (e.g. floor or ceiling effects) were dropped or re- both Cronbach’s alpha (α) and coefficient omega: ωu – see
worded. We decided to maintain the distinction between Flora41) and test-retest reliability (Spearman rho). The
Anticipated Stigma and Self-stigma for theoretical reasons main hypotheses (the relationship between mental health
(see Quinn et al.20). Other items were added to bolster the stigma variables, current mental health, and workplace ab-
Social Distancing scale and the Avoidant Coping scales. senteeism) were assessed via zero-order correlations and
The final SASS contained of 42 items across the six do- multiple regression. Spearman rho correlations were cho-
mains of Stigma to Others, Social Distance, Anticipated sen to analyse the data for consistency across the analysis
Stigma, Self-stigma, Avoidant Coping, and (Lack of) Help- (as some of the data were ordinal). Multiple hierarchical lin-
seeking/disclosure with six questions for each domain. The ear regressions were chosen to analyse the data even for the
measure also contains six items to examine positive impres- ordinal data to prevent a loss of information (see Mircioiu
sion management (Social Desirability). Mental health prob- & Atkinson42). In step 1 the demographic variables were
lems were defined at the start of the questionnaire as “a entered (including Social Desirability) to account for their
pattern of behaving, thinking, and/or feeling that causes the ability to predict the dependent variable. In step 2 the SASS
scales were entered. Changes in the ability of the model to (with some hint that Stigma to Others may be negatively re-
predict the dependent variable were assessed by changes in lated). Lack of Help-Seeking was positively correlated with
R2 and standardised beta (β) to examine the contribution of mental health problems (small effect size).
each scale. As the three mental health problem scales were highly
correlated (PHQ-9 and GAD-7 = .87; PHQ-9 and WSAS =
3. RESULTS .75; GAD-7 and WSAS = .70), the regression results are pre-
sented only for the PHQ-9 scale, however, the pattern of re-
sults was highly similar across all scales. The stage 1 model
Full demographic details are given in Table 1. Around 30%
was not significant (R2 = .02, F(3, 318) = 2.38, p = .07). The
of participants had taken sickness absence for mental
addition of the SASS scales produced a significant increase
health reasons in the past year. Very few participants pro-
in the model’s fit (∆R2 = 0.21, F(3, 314) = 18.33, p < .001).
vided mental health reasons for an absence when it was
Both Self-stigma and Avoidant Coping were positively pre-
really a physical health absence (n = 4, 1.2%). However,
dictive of mental health problems (medium effects sizes),
approximately a third of participants reported giving a
whereas Stigma to Others was negatively predictive of men-
physical health reason for an absence when it was really a
tal health problems (small effect size).
mental health problem (n = 124, 37.8%).
N %
N %
Have given a physical health reason but real reason was Yes 124 37.8
mental
No 201 61.3
Prefer not to say/missing 3 0.9
Have given a mental health reason but real reason was Yes 4 1.2
physical
No 324 98.8
Prefer not to say/missing 0 0
Note that percentages may not add to 100 as a person could endorse more than one category.
Table 2. Standardised Factor Loadings in the CFA, Standard Errors and Omega reliability of SASS subfactors.
Mean SD Min – Max Skewness Kurtosis Internal Internal Test-Retest Gender Correlation with age
reliability (ωu) reliability (α) reliability Difference group (rho)
(female
–male)
Stigma to 3.83 2.82 0 – 12 0.43 -0.73 .71 .71 .71 -0.01 .11*
others
Social distance 6.90 3.16 0 – 17 0.43 0.24 .62 .62 .67 -0.51 .07
Anticipated 13.44 5.10 0 – 24 -0.27 -0.68 .87 .88 .72 0.20 -.10
stigma
Self-stigma 11.40 4.86 0 – 24 0.14 -0.57 .84 .84 .76 -0.14 -.07
Avoidant 7.90 3.42 0 – 20 0.31 -0.07 .47 .47 .68 -0.28 -.02
coping
(Lack of) Help- 8.34 4.24 0 – 21 0.54 -0.21 .78 .77 .69 -0.43 .07
seeking
Social 12.18 4.32 1 – 21 -0.12 -0.53 .72 .72 .82 0.45 .19**
desirability
Table 4. Zero-order correlations and regression coefficients between the scales of the SASS and current mental
health variables
Table 5. Zero-order correlations and regression coefficients between the scales of the SASS and absenteeism
problems hold more stigmatic attitudes to those with prob- good in terms of rank-ordering, but people tend to under-
lems and are less likely to be absent from work. These re- report their overall levels of absence. They conclude that
sults, overall, suggest that mental health intervention pro- self-report data is valid for correlational type designs as
grammes that target stigma to others may not produce used in the present study.
changes in absenteeism. Intervention programmes need to The study was also cross-sectional limiting the ability
target other forms of stigma. to draw inferences about causation. Clearly, a longitudinal
study is needed to see if mental health attitudes are predic-
4.4. AVOIDANT COPING tive of future work placed behavior.
Finally, there are some limitations to the sample col-
As hypothesised, Avoidant Coping scale was associated with lected. First, data were only collected from a single organi-
poor mental health and greater absenteeism. Hence, sation that may limit the generalisability of the results. Sec-
avoidant coping strategies should be targeted by interven- ond, the study was reliant on individuals volunteering to
tion programmes that aim to improve people’s help-seeking take part in the study. No data were available from those
behaviour for mental health problems and improve rates of that did not volunteer to take part, so the study was not able
absenteeism from work. to compare individuals that did or did not volunteer. There
may be systematic biases between these two groups (e.g. ex-
4.5. LIMITATIONS perience of mental health problems), however it is not clear
that such differences would affect the pattern of relation-
The major limitation of this study is the reliance on self-re- ships between stigma and mental health reported here.
port for each of the measures used. However, some of the is-
sues seem only accessible via self-report (e.g. a person’s at- 4.6. CONCLUSIONS
titudes about their own mental health problems), and issues
of anonymity precluded our ability to look at how these in- The SASS measures multiple aspects of stigmatic beliefs
dividual attitudes were related to actual behavior. about mental health problems including aspects of stigma
Help-seeking intentions were measured rather than ac- towards others (cognitive and emotional stigma), antici-
tual help-seeking behaviors. This raises the question pated stigma by others towards the self, self-stigma,
whether help-seeking intentions are a good proxy measure avoidant coping strategies and help-seeking intentions,
for help-seeking behavior. Recent research supports the no- alongside an index of social desirability. The scales of the
tion that beliefs of one’s help-seeking intentions are a good SASS have good psychometric properties (with some minor
proxy for actual help-seeking behavior.45 exceptions), including good internal reliability and test-
Current mental health difficulties were measured using retest reliability. The scales also showed validity to key vari-
well-established questionnaires for the two most common ables such as current mental health and absenteeism from
mental disorders of depression and anxiety (PHQ-9 and the workplace. The SASS questionnaire, therefore, provides
GAD-7). These measures have established strong associa- the basis for a more comprehensive examination of mental
tions with actual mental health as diagnosed via clinician health stigma and attitudes in the workplace compared to
diagnoses.38,39 The study also used the WSAS that allows any single measure currently available. It is hoped the SASS
for an evaluation of the impact of mental health symptoms will prove useful to monitor changes in mental health atti-
on level of functioning. The WSAS also incorporates vari- tudes and intervention programmes, or to investigate stig-
ables that are specific to functioning in the workplace, and matic attitudes to mental health problems across different
thus was the most appropriate measure of the impact of samples, across cultures, and in different types of workplace
symptoms of mental health in the workplace. environment.
We measured absenteeism through participants’ self-re-
port. While official figures would normally record the rea-
son for an absence, it seems likely that some people may
dissimulate this reason, particularly if they hold stigmatic ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
attitudes about mental health problems. In the present
study, where responses were completely anonymous, ap- We are very grateful to the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing
proximately 1/3 of the participants admitted that they had Agency (DVLA) for part-funding this research, allowing ac-
dissimulated the reasons provided for their work absence, cess to a sample of their employees, and hosting the re-
with nearly all of these being instances where the person search student throughout the period of data collection. We
had given a physical health reason for absence whereas the are particularly grateful to Shireen Thomas, Rhodri Brad,
real reason was due to mental health problems. These re- Amanda Payne, Kirsten Howell, Sophie Hanford, Louise
sults are in line with large-scale studies that show that peo- White, Georgia Williams, and Jennifer Davies for all their
ple are more reluctant to report mental health problems in help, support, patience, and understanding throughout the
comparison to other health conditions.10 Thus, there are research process, for completing the veracity checks on the
instances where this anonymised self-report method may datadatabased for helping us to navigate through all the
have advantages over official records. There are also several challenges that the new laws on General Data Protection
studies that have addressed the relationship between self- Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Impact Assess-
report of absenteeism and official records. Johns and Mi- ment (DPIA) process brought to us.
raglia46 meta-analysed these studies and suggests that the
relationship between self-report and official records is very
The original project proposal was developed by NSG and This work was supported by a Knowledge Economy Skills
HBD. AED was responsible for data collection and curation. Scholarship (KESS-2) studentship for AED. We are also
AED was supervised by NSG and RJS. Data analysis was per- grateful to the Knowledge Economy Skills Scholarship
formed by RJS, AED and NS The original paper was drafted (KESS-2) for providing funding for AD’s Research Masters’s
by AED and RJS. All authors contributed to editing and qualification. KESS-2 is a pan-Walehigher-level skills initia-
rewrites of the manuscript. All authors approved the final tive led by Bangor University on behalf of the Higher Ed-
version of the manuscript. ucation sector in Wales. It is partly-funded by the Welsh
Government’s European Social Fund (ESF) convergence
CONFLICT OF INTEREST program for West Wales and the Valleys. The work was fur-
ther supported by grant from the Driver and Vehicles Li-
No conflicts of interest are reported for any of the authors. censing Agency (UK).
REFERENCES
1. Broadhead WE, Blazer DG, George LK, Tse CK. 13. Mak WWS, Poon CYM, Pun LYK, Cheung SF.
Depression, disability days, and days lost from work Meta-analysis of stigma and mental health. Soc Sci
in a prospective epidemiologic survey. JAMA. Med. 2007;65(2):245-261. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.20
1990;264(19):2524-2528. 07.03.015
2. Laitinen-Krispijn S, Bijl RV. Mental disorders and 14. Corrigan PW, Watson AC. Understanding the
employee sickness absence: the NEMESIS study. Soc impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World
Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000;35(2):71-77. Psychiatry. 2002;1(1):16-20.
3. Savikko A, Alexanderson K, Hensing G. Do mental 15. Eisenberg D, Downs MF, Golberstein E, Zivin K.
health problems increase sickness absence due to Stigma and help seeking for mental health among
other diseases? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. college students. Med Care Res Rev.
2001;36(6):310-316. 2009;66(5):522-541. doi:10.1177/1077558709335173
4. Stansfeld SA, Fuhrer R, Head J. Impact of common 16. Clement S, Schauman O, Graham T, et al. What is
mental disorders on sickness absence in an the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-
occupational cohort study. Occup Environ Med. seeking? a systematic review of quantitative and
2011;68(6):408-413. qualitative studies. Psychol Med. 2015;45(1):11-27.
5. Brouwers EPM. Social stigma is an underestimated 17. Fox AB, Earnshaw VA, Taverna EC, Vogt D.
contributing factor to unemployment in people with Conceptualizing and measuring mental illness
mental illness or mental health issues: position paper stigma: the mental illness stigma framework and
and future directions. BMC Psychol. 2020;8(1):1-7. do critical review of measures. Stigma Health.
i:10.1186/s40359-020-00399-0 2018;3(4):348.
6. Lim D, Sanderson K, Andrews G. Lost productivity 18. Subramaniam M, Abdin E, Picco L, et al. Stigma
among full-time workers with mental disorders. J towards people with mental disorders and its
Ment Health Policy Econ. 2000;3(3):139-146. components–a perspective from multi-ethnic
Singapore. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci.
7. Gulliver A, Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Perceived 2017;26(4):371-382.
barriers and facilitators to mental health help-
seeking in young people: a systematic review. BMC 19. Schomerus G, Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC.
Psychiatry. 2010;10(1):113. The stigma of psychiatric treatment and help-seeking
intentions for depression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin
8. Hunt J, Eisenberg D. Mental health problems and Neurosci. 2009;259(5):298-306. doi:10.1007/s00406-0
help-seeking behavior among college students. J 09-0870-y
Adolesc Health. 2010;46(1):3-10.
20. Quinn DM, Williams MK, Weisz BM. From
9. Oliver MI, Pearson N, Coe N, Gunnell D. Help- discrimination to internalized mental illness stigma:
seeking behaviour in men and women with common The mediating roles of anticipated discrimination and
mental health problems: cross-sectional study. Br J anticipated stigma. Psychiatr Rehabil J.
Psychiatry. 2005;186(4):297-301. 2015;38(2):103.
10. Bharadwaj P, Pai MM, Suziedelyte A. Mental 21. Lannin DG, Vogel DL, Brenner RE, Tucker JR.
health stigma. Econ Lett. 2017;159:57-60. doi:10.101 Predicting self-esteem and intentions to seek
6/j.econlet.2017.06.028 counseling: the internalized stigma model. Couns
Psychol. 2015;43(1):64-93. doi:10.1177/001100001454
1550
11. Corrigan P. How stigma interferes with mental
health care. American psychologist. 2004;59(7):614.
22. Fox AB, Smith BN, Vogt D. The relationship
between anticipated stigma and work functioning for
12. Cheng HL, Wang C, McDermott RC, Kridel M, individuals with depression. J Soc Clin Psychol.
Rislin JL. Self-stigma, mental health literacy, and 2016;35(10):883-897.
attitudes toward seeking psychological help. J Counsel
Dev. 2018;96(1):64-74. doi:10.1002/jcad.12178
23. Jennings KS, Cheung JH, Britt TW, et al. How are 34. Hawke LD, Parikh SV, Michalak EE. Stigma and
perceived stigma, self-stigma, and self-reliance bipolar disorder: a review of the literature. J Affect
related to treatment-seeking? A three-path model. Disord. 2013;150(2):181-191. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.0
Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2015;38(2):109. 5.030
24. Conner KO, Copeland VC, Grote NK, et al. Mental 35. Henderson C, Evans-Lacko S, Flach C, Thornicroft
health treatment seeking among older adults with G. Responses to mental health stigma questions: the
depression: the impact of stigma and race. Am J importance of social desirability and data collection
Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;18(6):531-543. method. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(3):152-160.
25. Penley JA, Tomaka J, Wiebe JS. The association of 36. Gray NS, Davies H, Snowden RJ. Reducing stigma
coping to physical and psychological health and increasing workplace productivity due to mental
outcomes: meta-analytic review. J Behav Med. health difficulties in a large government organization
2002;25(6):551-603. doi:10.1023/a:1020641400589 in the UK: a protocol for a randomised control
treatment trial (RCT) of a low intensity psychological
26. Chin WY, Chan KTY, Lam CLK, Lam TP, Wan EYF. intervention and stigma reduction programme for
Help-seeking intentions and subsequent 12-month common mental disorder (Prevail). BMC Public
mental health service use in Chinese primary care Health. 2020;20(1):1-9. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-0905
patients with depressive symptoms. BMJ Open. 4-0
2015;5(1):e006730.
37. Goetzel RZ, Long SR, Ozminkowski RJ, Hawkins K,
27. van Rhenen W, Schaufeli WB, van Dijk FJH, Blonk Wang S, Lynch W. Health, absence, disability, and
RWB. Coping and sickness absence. Int Arch Occup presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and
Environ Health. 2008;81(4):461-472. doi:10.1007/s004 mental health conditions affecting US employers. J
20-007-0238-4 Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(4):398-412.
28. Wei Y, McGrath PJ, Hayden J, Kutcher S. Mental 38. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9:
health literacy measures evaluating knowledge, validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen
attitudes and help-seeking: a scoping review. BMC Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613.
Psychiatry. 2015;15(1):291. doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0
681-9 39. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A
brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety
29. Brohan E, Slade M, Clement S, Thornicroft G. disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med.
Experiences of mental illness stigma, prejudice and 2006;166(10):1092-1097.
discrimination: a review of measures. BMC Health
Serv Res. 2010;10(1):80. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-80 40. Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, Greist JM. The
Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure
30. Schomerus G, Schwahn C, Holzinger A, et al. of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry.
Evolution of public attitudes about mental illness: a 2002;180(5):461-464.
systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr
Scand. 2012;125(6):440-452. 41. Flora DB. Your coefficient alpha is probably
wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A
31. Van Brakel WH. Measuring health-related tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability
stigma—a literature review. Psychol Health Med. estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci.
2006;11(3):307-334. 2020;3(4):484-501. doi:10.1177/2515245920951747
45. Lannin DG, Vogel DL, Brenner RE, Abraham WT, 46. Johns G, Miraglia M. The reliability, validity, and
Heath PJ. Does self-stigma reduce the probability of accuracy of self-reported absenteeism from work: a
seeking mental health information? J Couns Psychol. meta-analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2015;20(1):1.
2016;63(3):351.