CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,262Mental Health Treatment and AccessMental Health and PsychiatryPsychology and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“A Disease Like Any Other”? A Decade of Change in Public Reactions to Schizophrenia, Depression, and Alcohol Dependence

Open access
Pescosolido, Bernice A., Martin, Jack K., Long, J. Scott, Medina, Tait R., Phelan, Jo C., Link, Bruce G.·2010·American Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743PMC PMC4429867
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians, advocates, and policy makers have presented mental illnesses as medical diseases in efforts to overcome low service use, poor adherence rates, and stigma. The authors examined the impact of this approach with a 10-year comparison of public endorsement of treatment and prejudice. METHOD: The authors analyzed responses to vignettes in the mental health modules of the 1996 and 2006 General Social Survey describing individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, major depression, and alcohol dependence to explore whether more of the public 1) embraces neurobiological understandings of mental illness; 2) endorses treatment from providers, including psychiatrists; and 3) reports community acceptance or rejection of people with these disorders. Multivariate analyses examined whether acceptance of neurobiological causes increased treatment support and lessened stigma. RESULTS: In 2006, 67% of the public attributed major depression to neurobiological causes, compared with 54% in 1996. High proportions of respondents endorsed treatment, with general increases in the proportion endorsing treatment from doctors and specific increases in the proportions endorsing psychiatrists for treatment of alcohol dependence (from 61% in 1996 to 79% in 2006) and major depression (from 75% in 1996 to 85% in 2006). Social distance and perceived danger associated with people with these disorders did not decrease significantly. Holding a neurobiological conception of these disorders increased the likelihood of support for treatment but was generally unrelated to stigma. Where associated, the effect was to increase, not decrease, community rejection. CONCLUSIONS: More of the public embraces a neurobiological understanding of mental illness. This view translates into support for services but not into a decrease in stigma. Reconfiguring stigma reduction strategies may require providers and advocates to shift to an emphasis on competence and inclusion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services: Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health: A National Action Agenda. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001
  2. 10.1525/sp.1997.44.2.03x0222n · DOI
  3. Smith TW, 2003, GSS Methodological No. 98
  4. StataCorp: Survey Data Reference Manual. College Station, Tex, Stata Press, 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,262

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pescosolido, B. A., Martin, J. K., Long, J. S., Medina, T. R., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G.
Affiliations
Indiana University (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
American Psychiatric Association Publishing
Published
2010-11
Volume
167
Issue
11
Pages
1321-1330
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
DOI
10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743
PMC
PMC4429867
OpenAlex
W2130559519
Cited by
1,262
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 99 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 118 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 90 · 2013: 97 · 2012: 84
FWCI
97.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH074985)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
Keywords
public attitudes toward mental illness, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, alcoholism, mental health stigma, treatment support, social distance, perceived danger, psychiatrists, community acceptance, mental health service utilization, General Social Survey
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcoholism, Character, Dangerous Behavior, Data Collection, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Health Policy, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Morals, Neurobiology, Patient Care Team, Prejudice, Psychiatry, Public Opinion, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Social Behavior Disorders, Psychological Distance, Social Support, United States, Causality

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