Understanding Mental Illness Stigma Toward Persons With Multiple Stigmatized Conditions: Implications of Intersectionality Theory

Oexle, Nathalie; Corrigan, Patrick W.

doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201700312

Cited by 95 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that fiscal concerns are not the only core attribute of this segment. Attitudes towards people with mental illness (e.g., perceptions of the extent to which their problems are the result of individual versus structural issues) [ 5 , 26 , 72 ] and other characteristics often associated with people with mental illness (e.g., low social class, minority race/ethnicity) [ 73 ] potentially play an important role and should be considered in dissemination strategies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audience segmentation to disseminate behavioral health evidence to legislators: an empirical clustering analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundElected officials (e.g., legislators) are an important but understudied population in dissemination research. Audience segmentation is essential in developing dissemination strategies that are tailored for legislators with different characteristics, but sophisticated audience segmentation analyses have not been conducted with this population. An empirical clustering audience segmentation study was conducted to (1) identify behavioral health (i.e., mental health and substance abuse) audience segments among US state legislators, (2) identify legislator characteristics that are predictive of segment membership, and (3) determine whether segment membership is predictive of support for state behavioral health parity laws.MethodsLatent class analysis (LCA) was used. Data were from a multi-modal (post-mail, e-mail, telephone) survey of state legislators fielded in 2017 (N = 475). Nine variables were included in the LCA (e.g., perceptions of behavioral health treatment effectiveness, mental illness stigma). Binary logistic regression tested associations between legislator characteristics (e.g., political party, gender, ideology) and segment membership. Multi-level logistic regression assessed the predictive validity of segment membership on support for parity laws. A name was developed for each segment that captured its most salient features.ResultsThree audience segments were identified. Budget-oriented skeptics with stigma (47% of legislators) had the least faith in behavioral health treatment effectiveness, had the most mental illness stigma, and were most influenced by budget impact. This segment was predominantly male, Republican, and ideologically conservative. Action-oriented supporters (24%) were most likely to have introduced a behavioral health bill, most likely to identify behavioral health issues as policy priorities, and most influenced by research evidence. This was the most politically and ideologically diverse segment. Passive supporters (29%) had the greatest faith in treatment effectiveness and the least stigma, but were also least likely to have introduced a behavioral health bill. Segment membership was a stronger predictor of support for parity laws than almost all other legislator characteristics.ConclusionsState legislators are a heterogeneous audience when it comes to behavioral health. There is a need to develop and test behavioral health evidence dissemination strategies that are tailored for legislators in different audience segments. Empirical clustering approaches to audience segmentation are a potentially valuable tool for dissemination science.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0816-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audience segmentation to disseminate behavioral health evidence to legislators: an empirical clustering analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other health disciplines have advanced intersectionality research, including medicine, 66 nursing, 67 psychology, 68 and psychiatry and mental health 69,70 . This work provides important learning opportunities for oral health research.…”

Section: How Could Oral Health Research Benefit From Adopting An Intementioning

confidence: 99%

What is intersectionality and why is it important in oral health research?

Muirhead

Milner

Freeman

et al. 2020

Comm Dent Oral Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is the second of two reviews that seek to stimulate debate on new and neglected avenues in oral health research. The first commissioned narrative review, “Inclusion oral health: Advancing a theoretical framework for policy, research and practice”, published in February 2020, explored social exclusion, othering and intersectionality. In it, we argued that people who experience social exclusion face a “triple threat”: they are separated from mainstream society, stigmatized by the dental profession, and severed from wider health and social care systems because of the disconnection between oral health and general health. We proposed a definition of inclusion oral health and a theoretical framework to advance the policy, research and practice agenda. This second review delves further into the concept of intersectionality, arguing that individuals who are socially excluded experience multiple forms of discrimination, stigma and disadvantage that reflect intersecting social identities. We first provide a theoretical and historical overview of intersectionality, rooted in Black feminist ideologies in the United States. Our working definition of intersectionality, requiring the simultaneous appreciation of multiple social identities, an examination of power and inequality, and a recognition of changing social contexts, then sets the scene for examining existing applications of intersectionality in oral health research. A critique of the sparse application of intersectionality in oral health research highlights missed opportunities and shortcomings related to paradigmatic and epistemological differences, a lack of robust theoretically engaged quantitative and mixed methods research, and a failure to sufficiently consider power from an intersectionality perspective. The final section proposes a framework to guide future oral health research that embraces an intersectionality agenda consisting of descriptive research to deepen our understanding of intersectionality, and transformative research to tackle social injustice and inequities through participatory research and co‐production.

show abstract

“…To date, stigma toward individuals with Mental Illness (MI) is a severe social problem as well as a heavy burden for affected people (Corrigan, 2005; Oexle and Corrigan, 2018). While public knowledge about physical diseases is usually seen as beneficial, knowledge about MI is often disregarded (Angermeyer and Dietrich, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%