CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 688Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health Treatment and AccessMental Health and Psychiatry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward Understanding the Insight Paradox: Internalized Stigma Moderates the Association Between Insight and Social Functioning, Hope, and Self-esteem Among People with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders

Open access
Lysaker, P. H., Roe, D., Yanos, P. T.·2006·Schizophrenia Bulletin
DOI 10.1093/schbul/sbl016PMC PMC2012366
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research has paradoxically linked awareness of illness to both better function outcomes and lesser hope and self-esteem. One possible explanation for these findings is that acceptance of having schizophrenia may impact outcomes differently depending on the meanings the person attaches to this acceptance, particularly whether he or she accepts stigmatizing beliefs about mental illness. To explore this possibility we performed a cluster analysis of 75 persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders based on single measures of insight using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, internalized stigma using the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Scale, and compared groups on concurrent assessments of hope and self-esteem. Three groups were produced by the cluster analyses: low in sight/mild stigma (n = 23), high insight/minimal stigma (n = 25), and high insight/moderate stigma (n = 27). As predicted, analysis of variance-comparing groups revealed that the high insight/moderate stigma group had significantly the lowest levels of hope on the Beck Hopelessness Scale and self-esteem using the Multidimensional Self-esteem Inventory. As predicted, the high insight/minimal stigma group also had significantly less impaired social function than the other groups. Implications for assisting persons to come to cope with awareness of illness and stigma are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbl016

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 688

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lysaker, P. H., Roe, D., & Yanos, P. T.
Affiliations
  • Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Lysaker, P. H.
ORCID
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-12-07
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
192-199
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
DOI
10.1093/schbul/sbl016
PMC
PMC2012366
OpenAlex
W2162981648
Cited by
688
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 47
FWCI
11.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH066973)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
insight, self-stigma
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Awareness, Culture, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Personality Inventory, Prejudice, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Self Concept, Sick Role, Social Adjustment, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review