Dr Lisa Harkry

BACKGROUND: Autistic individuals face challenges accessing employment, particularly as a result of limited knowledge and understanding of autism. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods study aimed to measure levels of knowledge of autism and examine hiring attitudes in the workplace. METHODS: To determine knowledge of autism, N = 101 professionals in the United Kingdom responded to a survey that included the Autism Stigma & Knowledge Questionnaire (ASK-Q). Open-ended and closed-ended questions were used to examine hiring attitudes and particularly perceived barriers or drivers to employment for autistic candidates. Nine respondents took part in further semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Findings report adequate knowledge with a lack of stigma endorsement. Data also indicate a significant relationship between self-reported autism knowledge and the overall ASK-Q total. Autism knowledge was statistically significantly higher in participants who knew an autistic individual through work and where professionals or their companies had knowingly employed an autistic person. Qualitative data provide nuanced understanding about barriers and the possibilities for more inclusive autistic employment. CONCLUSION: A strong case was made for understanding the needs and strengths of individuals in order to generate a diversity climate in the workplace.

Aims.

This study builds on existing research on the prevalence and consequences of mental illness discrimination by investigating and quantifying the relationships between experienced discrimination and costs of healthcare and leisure activities/social participation among secondary mental health service users in England.

Background Decisions about whether to disclose mental health problems to employers are complex, with potential personal, employment and legal implications. Decision aids are evidence based tools, designed to help individuals make specific choices between treatment options. We previously developed a decision aid-Conceal Or ReveAL (CORAL)-to assist service users with decisions about disclosure to employers. As part of a mixed methods exploratory RCT, which demonstrated that the CORAL decision aid was effective in reducing decisional conflict, we aimed to explore its mechanism of action and to optimise the intervention for a future full scale trial. Methods In depth interviews were conducted with individuals receiving vocational support from a mental health trust and participating in the intervention arm of the pilot trial. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the main themes relating to participants' perceptions of the CORAL decision aid. Results Thirteen participants were interviewed and five main themes were identified: sense of self and values; sense of control; anticipation of disclosure; experience of disclosure; and mechanism of action of the decision aid. Conclusions Data from our 13 participants suggest that the CORAL decision aid acts on several dimensions of decisional conflict: clarifying the pros and cons of different choices; increasing knowledge; structuring the decision making process; and clarifying needs and values. The current study indicated that it would be most effective when delivered by a professional well versed in employment and mental health matters such as a vocational adviser. The need for employers and policymakers to reduce the negative impact of disclosure is also highlighted.

Delayed treatment seeking for people experiencing symptoms of mental illness is common despite available mental healthcare. Poor outcomes are associated with untreated mental illness and caregivers may eventually need to seek help on the service user's behalf. More attention has recently focused on the role of stigma in delayed treatment seeking. This study aimed to establish the frequency of stigma- and non-stigma-related treatment barriers reported by 202 service users and 80 caregivers; to compare treatment barriers reported by service users and caregivers; and to investigate demographic predictors of reporting stigma-related treatment barriers. The profile of treatment barriers differed between service users and caregivers. Service users were more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers than caregivers across all stigma-related items. Service users who were female, had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or with GCSEs (UK qualifications usually obtained at age 16) were significantly more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers. Caregivers who were female or of Black ethnicities were significantly more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers. Multifaceted approaches are needed to reduce barriers to treatment seeking for both service users and caregivers, with anti-stigma interventions being of particular importance for the former group.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed participants' experienced discrimination and their causal attributions, particularly to mental illness or race-ethnicity. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 202 service users with severe mental illnesses were interviewed to assess their reported experiences of discrimination. The Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale assessed major experiences of discrimination and their recency and frequency across 12 life domains and perceived reasons (attributions). The Everyday Experiences of Discrimination Scale assessed ten types of everyday discrimination and attributions for these experiences. RESULTS: Most participants (88%) reported discrimination in at least one life domain, and 94% reported ever experiencing everyday discrimination. The most common areas of major discrimination were mental health care (44%), neighbors (42%), police (33%), employment (31%), and general medical care (31%). The most common attributions for major discrimination were mental illness (57%), race-ethnicity (24%), education or income (20%), or appearance (19%). Almost half (47%) attributed experiences of major discrimination to two or more causes. No differences were found between racial-ethnic groups in overall experienced discrimination or in main attributions to mental illness. However, compared with the mixed and white groups, participants in the black group were most likely to endorse race-ethnicity as a main attribution (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mental illness-related discrimination was found to be a common issue across racial-ethnic groups, and discrimination based on race-ethnicity was prevalent for the mixed and black groups. There is a need for antidiscrimination strategies that combine efforts to reduce the experience of discrimination attributed to mental illness and to race-ethnicity for racial-ethnic minority groups.

BACKGROUND: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illness has been linked to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. Additionally, anticipation of discrimination may lead some individuals to avoid participation in particular life areas, leading to greater isolation and social marginalisation. This study aimed to establish the levels and clinical and socio-demographic associations of anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst those diagnosed with a schizophrenia and comparator severe mental illnesses (bipolar and major depressive disorders). METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of anticipated and experienced discrimination from 202 individuals in South London (47% with schizophrenia, 32% with depression and 20% with bipolar disorder). RESULTS: 93% of the sample anticipated discrimination and 87% of participants had experienced discrimination in at least one area of life in the previous year. There was a significant association between the anticipation and the experience of discrimination. Higher levels of experienced discrimination were reported by those of a mixed ethnicity, and those with higher levels of education. Women anticipated more discrimination than men. Neither diagnosis nor levels of functioning were associated with the extent of discrimination. Clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression and suspiciousness were associated with more experienced and anticipated discrimination respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illnesses remains unacceptably common. Population level interventions are needed to reduce levels of discrimination and to safeguard individuals. Interventions are also required to assist those with severe mental illness to reduce internalised stigma and social avoidance.