Cross-sectional study of mental health related knowledge and attitudes among care assistant workers in Guangzhou, China.

Jie Li, Xiao-Ling Duan, Hua-Qing Zhong, Wen Chen, Sara Evans-Lacko, Graham Thornicroft
Author Information
  1. Jie Li: The Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (Guangzhou Huiai Hospital), NO. 36 Mingxin Road, Liwan District, Guangzhou, 510370, China. biglijie@163.com. ORCID
  2. Xiao-Ling Duan: The Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (Guangzhou Huiai Hospital), NO. 36 Mingxin Road, Liwan District, Guangzhou, 510370, China.
  3. Hua-Qing Zhong: The Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (Guangzhou Huiai Hospital), NO. 36 Mingxin Road, Liwan District, Guangzhou, 510370, China.
  4. Wen Chen: Faculty of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen Center for Migrant Health Policy, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  5. Sara Evans-Lacko: Care Policy Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
  6. Graham Thornicroft: Centre for Global Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Care assistant workers (CAWs) are a part of a new pattern of mental health care providers in China and play a significant role in bridging the human resource shortage. CAWs in China mainly include community cadres, community mental health staff, and community policemen. The mental health related knowledge and attitudes of CAWs could influence their mental health care delivery. This study aimed to assess mental health related knowledge and attitudes of CAWs in Guangzhou, China.
METHODS: In November 2017, a study was conducted among 381 CAWs from four districts of Guangzhou, China. Participants were assessed using the Perceived Devaluation and Discrimination Scale (PDD), the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS), and the Mental illness: Clinicians' Attitudes (MICA) Scale. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Bonferroni corrections and multivariable linear regression.
RESULTS: The mean scores (standard deviation) of PDD, MAKS and MICA were 36.45 (6.54), 22.72 (2.56), and 51.67 (7.88), respectively. Univariate analyses showed that the older CAWs, community policemen and those who were less willing to deliver care to people with mental illness had significant higher MICA scores when compared with other staff (P < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression showed that after controlling for key variables, care willingness and PDD total score were positively associated with the MICA total score (all P < 0.05), while attitudes on additional items were significant negatively with the MICA total score (all P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest negative attitudes towards people with mental disorders among CAWs are common, especially among older staff. Community policemen suggest that they applied stereotypes of "violent mentally ill" people to all people they deal with who have mental disorders. The results also indicate human rights are being paid some attention to now, but need to be further continually improved in the future. Strategies for improving such negative attitudes and reducing the perceived stigma and discrimination should be carried out towards particular staff groups in an anti-stigma programme in Guangzhou, China.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Psychiatry. 2015 Jan 14;5:186 [PMID: 25642196]
  2. World Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;13(2):153-60 [PMID: 24890068]
  3. Psychiatr Serv. 2002 Oct;53(10):1266-71 [PMID: 12364674]
  4. Eur Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;20(8):529-39 [PMID: 16171984]
  5. Soc Sci Med. 2020 Feb 15;250:112852 [PMID: 32135459]
  6. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004;32(4):378-85 [PMID: 15704622]
  7. Health Policy Plan. 2018 Jan 1;33(1):107-122 [PMID: 29040516]
  8. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2017;54(1):18-23 [PMID: 28857754]
  9. Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):859-77 [PMID: 17804063]
  10. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 13;14:231 [PMID: 25115221]
  11. J Affect Disord. 2013 Sep 5;150(2):320-9 [PMID: 23706876]
  12. Psychiatry Res. 2013 Mar 30;206(1):81-7 [PMID: 23084597]
  13. Health Hum Rights. 2016 Jun;18(1):263-276 [PMID: 27781015]
  14. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;3(2):171-8 [PMID: 26851330]
  15. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2013 Apr;55:s51-7 [PMID: 23553695]
  16. Hum Resour Health. 2011 Jan 11;9:1 [PMID: 21223546]
  17. Asian J Psychiatr. 2018 Apr;34:21-30 [PMID: 29627721]
  18. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019 Jan 3;13:1 [PMID: 30622627]
  19. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2008 Aug-Sep;31(4):359-68 [PMID: 18632154]
  20. Psychol Med. 2013 Apr;43(4):849-63 [PMID: 22785067]
  21. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Oct;118:33-42 [PMID: 25089962]
  22. Lancet. 2007 Sep 29;370(9593):1164-74 [PMID: 17804061]
  23. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 1;9(1):e024059 [PMID: 30782724]
  24. Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Mar;190:192-3 [PMID: 17329736]
  25. Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):810-1 [PMID: 17804064]
  26. BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Oct 26;15:263 [PMID: 26503370]
  27. BMC Public Health. 2016 Feb 09;16:127 [PMID: 26861632]
  28. World Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;10(3):210-6 [PMID: 21991281]
  29. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006 Mar;113(3):163-79 [PMID: 16466402]
  30. Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Dec;52(12):1621-6 [PMID: 11726753]
  31. Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;210(2):119-124 [PMID: 27908899]
  32. Lancet. 2011 Nov 5;378(9803):1654-63 [PMID: 22008420]
  33. Can J Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;55(7):440-8 [PMID: 20704771]
  34. Br J Psychiatry. 1996 Feb;168(2):191-8 [PMID: 8837909]
  35. Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):878-89 [PMID: 17804062]
  36. Lancet. 2013 Jun 8;381(9882):1970-1 [PMID: 23746771]
  37. Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1715-6 [PMID: 23158236]
  38. BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Nov 20;18(1):367 [PMID: 30453932]

Grants

  1. MR/R023697/1/Medical Research Council
  2. MR/S001255/1/Medical Research Council

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0mentalCAWsattitudeshealthChinacareMICAcommunitystaffGuangzhouamongpeopleassistantworkerssignificantpolicemenrelatedknowledgestudyPDDP < 0totalscoredisordersCarehumanScaleMentalKnowledgeMAKSlinearregressionscoresshowedoldersuggestnegativetowardsrightsdiscriminationBACKGROUND:partnewpatternprovidersplayrolebridgingresourceshortagemainlyincludecadresinfluencedeliveryaimedassessMETHODS:November2017conducted381fourdistrictsParticipantsassessedusingPerceivedDevaluationDiscriminationHealthScheduleillness:Clinicians'AttitudesDataanalyzeddescriptivestatisticsANOVABonferronicorrectionsmultivariableRESULTS:meanstandarddeviation364565422722565167788respectivelyUnivariateanalyseslesswillingdeliverillnesshighercompared001Multivariablecontrollingkeyvariableswillingnesspositivelyassociated05additionalitemsnegatively01CONCLUSION:findingscommonespeciallyCommunityappliedstereotypes"violentmentallyill"dealresultsalsoindicatepaidattentionnowneedcontinuallyimprovedfutureStrategiesimprovingreducingperceivedstigmacarriedparticulargroupsanti-stigmaprogrammeCross-sectionalHumanLow-middle-incomecountriesSevereStigma

Similar Articles

Cited By