
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:title>Three agendas for changing the public stigma of mental illness.</dc:title>
  <dc:description>OBJECTIVE: Antistigma programs may be guided by 3 differing agendas: services (promote treatment engagement),
		rights (help people achieve rightful goals), and self-worth (facilitate self-worth and efficacy). This study
		examined the construct validity of this perspective by examining the factor structure of importance ratings of
		the 3 agendas. The study examined how importance might be viewed differently by the population as a whole versus
		a subsample of people who reported previous experience with mental health services and hence could be directly
		harmed by stigma. METHODS: 373 individuals recruited using Mechanical Turk completed importance ratings for each
		of the 3 agendas. Measures of public stigma were completed to examine concurrent validity of importance ratings.
		Those who reported taking medications for a psychiatric disorder were divided into a separate group and
		completed a measure of self-stigma. RESULTS: Outcomes seemed to confirm the factor structure of the 3 agendas
		model thereby offering partial support for the framework. Group analyses showed the services agenda was viewed
		as more important than rights or self-worth. People with mental health experience viewed the services agenda as
		more important than the other 2. However, dividing the mental health group into low and high self-stigma
		revealed that those with low self-stigma rated the rights agenda as more important. Conclusions and Implication
		for Practice: Participants with lower self-stigma identify the harm brought by stigma and thus endorse rights
		and self-worth more than those with higher self-stigma. Implications of these findings are discussed to assist
		to prioritize agendas for public health campaigns.</dc:description>
  <dc:publisher>American Psychological Association</dc:publisher>
  <dc:contributor>Corrigan, Patrick</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Al-Khouja, Maya</dc:contributor>
  <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
  <dc:date>2017</dc:date>
  <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
  <dc:format></dc:format>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>islandora:1000498</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10560/islandora:1000498</dc:identifier>
  <dc:source>PSYC / Psychology</dc:source>
  <dc:source>Illinois Institute of Technology</dc:source>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:rights>In Copyright</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>embargoed access</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>
