Author
Listed:
- Leonieke C van Boekel
- Evelien PM Brouwers
- Jaap van Weeghel
- Henk FL Garretsen
Abstract
Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are among the most severely stigmatised conditions; however, little is known about the nature of these stigmatising attitudes. Aims: To assess and compare stigmatising attitudes towards persons with SUDs among different stakeholders: general public, general practitioners (GPs), mental health and addiction specialists, and clients in treatment for substance abuse. Methods: Cross-sectional study ( N   =  3,326) in which stereotypical beliefs, attribution beliefs (e.g. perceptions about controllability and responsibility for having an addiction), social distance and expectations about rehabilitation opportunities for individuals with substance use disorders were assessed and compared between stakeholders. Results: Individuals with substance use disorders elicited great social distance across all stakeholders. Stereotypical beliefs were not different between stakeholders, whereas attribution beliefs were more diverse. Considering social distance and expectations about rehabilitation opportunities, the general public was most pessimistic, followed by GPs, mental health and addiction specialists, and clients. Stereotypical and attribution beliefs, as well as age, gender and socially desirable answering, were not associated with social distance across all stakeholders. Conclusion: The general public and GPs expressed more social distance and were more negative in their expectations about rehabilitation opportunities, compared to mental health and addiction specialists and clients. Although stigmatising attitudes were prevalent across all groups, no striking differences were found between stakeholders.
Suggested Citation
Leonieke C van Boekel & Evelien PM Brouwers & Jaap van Weeghel & Henk FL Garretsen, 2015.
"Comparing stigmatising attitudes towards people with substance use disorders between the general public, GPs, mental health and addiction specialists and clients,"
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 61(6), pages 539-549, September.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:61:y:2015:i:6:p:539-549
DOI: 10.1177/0020764014562051
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:61:y:2015:i:6:p:539-549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.