Global pattern of experienced and anticipated discrimination against people with schizophrenia: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia experience stigma caused by other people's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour; this can lead to impoverishment, social marginalisation, and low quality of life. We aimed to describe the nature, direction, and severity of anticipated and experienced discrimination reported by people with schizophrenia. METHODS: We did a cross-sectional survey in 27 countries, in centres affiliated to the INDIGO Research Network, by use of face-to-face interviews with 732 participants with schizophrenia. Discrimination was measured with the newly validated discrimination and stigma scale (DISC), which produces three subscores: positive experienced discrimination; negative experienced discrimination; and anticipated discrimination. FINDINGS: Negative discrimination was experienced by 344 (47%) of 729 participants in making or keeping friends, by 315 (43%) of 728 from family members, by 209 (29%) of 724 in finding a job, 215 (29%) of 730 in keeping a job, and by 196 (27%) of 724 in intimate or sexual relationships. Positive experienced discrimination was rare. Anticipated discrimination affected 469 (64%) in applying for work, training, or education and 402 (55%) looking for a close relationship; 526 (72%) felt the need to conceal their diagnosis. Over a third of participants anticipated discrimination for job seeking and close personal relationships when no discrimination was experienced. INTERPRETATION: Rates of both anticipated and experienced discrimination are consistently high across countries among people with mental illness. Measures such as disability discrimination laws might, therefore, not be effective without interventions to improve self-esteem of people with mental illness

Anticipated discrimination among people with schizophrenia.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of anticipated discrimination in people with schizophrenia (n = 732) from 27 countries in the International Study of Discrimination and Stigma Outcomes (INDIGO).Anticipated discrimination was assessed through four questions of Discrimination and Stigma Scale. Twenty-five individuals were identified at each site who were reasonably representative of all such treated cases within the local area.Sixty-four per cent of the participants reported that they had stopped themselves from applying for work, training or education because of anticipated discrimination. Seventy-two per cent of them reported that they felt the need to conceal their diagnosis. Expecting to be avoided by others who know about their diagnosis was highly associated with decisions to conceal their diagnosis. Those who concealed their diagnosis were younger and more educated. The participants who perceived discrimination by others were more likely to stop themselves from looking for a close relationship. Anticipated discrimination in finding and keeping work was more common in the absence than in the presence of experienced discrimination, and the similar findings applied to intimate relationships.This study shows that anticipated discrimination among people with schizophrenia is common, but is not necessarily associated with experienced discrimination

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society