Lauber Christoph
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2008 Jan-Mar;17(1):10-3.
This editorial gives an overview of the different roots and forms of discrimination and stigmatisation towards people with mental illness. It explains the differences between stereotype, prejudice and discrimination. It further highlights some research foci of stigma research in the last decade. The emphasis was mostly on investigating the attitudes of the general population, but barely addressed other groups that have probably more intensive and more crucial contact with people with mental illness. Furthermore, only very few intervention programs were evaluated. This editorial concludes that other groups than the general population, e.g., mental health professionals, should be investigated about their attitudes to people with mental illness. Moreover, intervention campaigns should be additionally evaluated after a given period as it is not well known whether effects of interventions are long-lasting. It might be that anti-stigma campaigns, as every public health campaign, must be repeated if sustainability is the goal. Furthermore, the message must be carefully chosen. One option is to replace the "traditional" messages by focussing, e.g., on symptoms of mental illness, for instance anxiety, affective symptoms or suicidal ideations. Finally, a plea for more stigma-related research is given as research in stigma-related issues is also stigmatised.
这篇社论概述了对精神疾病患者的歧视和污名化的不同根源及形式。它解释了刻板印象、偏见和歧视之间的差异。它进一步强调了过去十年中污名研究的一些重点。重点大多放在调查普通大众的态度上，但几乎没有涉及其他可能与精神疾病患者有更密切和更关键接触的群体。此外，只有极少数干预项目得到了评估。这篇社论得出结论，除了普通大众之外，其他群体，如心理健康专业人员，也应该调查他们对精神疾病患者的态度。此外，干预活动在一段时间后应该进行额外评估，因为目前尚不清楚干预效果是否持久。如果以可持续性为目标，反污名运动可能像每一项公共卫生运动一样，必须反复开展。此外，信息必须精心挑选。一种选择是，例如通过关注精神疾病的症状，如焦虑、情感症状或自杀念头，来取代“传统”信息。最后，鉴于与污名相关问题的研究也受到污名化，因此呼吁开展更多与污名相关的研究。
