Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187593
DC FieldValue
dc.titleAttitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore and comparisons with the general population
dc.contributor.authorYuan Q.
dc.contributor.authorPicco L.
dc.contributor.authorChang S.
dc.contributor.authorAbdin E.
dc.contributor.authorChua B.Y.
dc.contributor.authorOng S.
dc.contributor.authorYow K.L.
dc.contributor.authorChong S.A.
dc.contributor.authorSubramaniam M.
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-19T08:58:25Z
dc.date.available2020-03-19T08:58:25Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationYuan Q., Picco L., Chang S., Abdin E., Chua B.Y., Ong S., Yow K.L., Chong S.A., Subramaniam M. (2017). Attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore and comparisons with the general population. PLoS ONE 12 (11) : e0187593. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187593
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/165770
dc.description.abstractBackground: Similar to the general public, mental health professionals sometimes also have negative attitudes towards individuals with mental illness; which could ultimately affect the quality of care received by the patients. This study aims to explore attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore; make comparisons with the general population; and investigate the significant correlates. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used. Eligible participants were recruited from the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Attitudes to mental illness among the mental health professionals were measured using an adapted 26-item Attitudes to Mental Illness questionnaire (AMI). An earlier study amongst the general population in Singapore had used the same tool; however, factor analysis suggested a 20-item, 4-factor structure (AMI-SG) was the best fit. This 4-factor structure was applied among the current sample of mental health professionals to allow comparisons between the professionals and the general population. Data were collected through an online survey tool ‘Questionpro’ from February to April 2016, and 379 participants were included in the current analysis. Attitudes to mental illness among these professionals were compared to those of the general population, which were captured as part of a national study conducted from March 2014 to April 2015. Results: The 20-item, 4-factor structure AMI-SG derived from the general population was applicable among the mental health professionals in Singapore. Compared to the general population, mental health professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness; however their scores on ‘social distancing’ did not differ from the general population. Indian ethnicity was negatively associated with ‘social distancing’ and ‘social restrictiveness’ among the professionals; while higher education was negatively related to ‘prejudice and misconception’. Compared to nurses, doctors showed significantly more positive attitudes on ‘social restrictiveness’ and ‘prejudice and misconception’. Having family or close friends diagnosed with mental illness was negatively associated with ‘social distancing’ among the professionals. Conclusion: The AMI-SG is an effective tool to measure attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore. Although the professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness than the general public in Singapore, their attitudes on ‘social distancing’ resembled closely that of the general public. Professionals tended to have more negative attitudes if they were nurses, less educated, and of Chinese ethnicity. More studies are needed to explore the underlying reasons for the differences and to generalize these findings among mental health professionals elsewhere. © 2017 Yuan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science
dc.sourceUnpaywall 20200320
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectattitude assessment
dc.subjectattitude to mental illness
dc.subjectAttitudes to Mental Illness questionnaire
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectcross-sectional study
dc.subjecteducational status
dc.subjectfamily history
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectIndian
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectmental health care personnel
dc.subjectnurse attitude
dc.subjectphysician attitude
dc.subjectprejudice
dc.subjectSingapore
dc.subjectsocial distance
dc.subjectcase control study
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjecthealth care personnel
dc.subjecthealth personnel attitude
dc.subjectmental disease
dc.subjectmiddle aged
dc.subjectpsychology
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAttitude of Health Personnel
dc.subjectCase-Control Studies
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHealth Personnel
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMental Disorders
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectSingapore
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentSAW SWEE HOCK SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
dc.description.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0187593
dc.description.sourcetitlePLoS ONE
dc.description.volume12
dc.description.issue11
dc.description.pagee0187593
dc.published.statePublished
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1371_journal_pone_0187593.pdf735.93 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

19
checked on Jan 14, 2022

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

13
checked on Oct 5, 2021

Page view(s)

165
checked on Jan 13, 2022

Download(s)

10
checked on Jan 13, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.