250 labels used to stigmatise people with mental illness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The stigma against people with mental illness is a major barrier to help-seeking in young people for mental health problems. The objective of this study was to investigate the extent of stigma in relation to treatment avoidance in 14 year-old school students in England in relation to how they refer to people with mental illness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a qualitative, cross-sectional study. The data were gathered as part of the baseline assessment for an intervention study intended to reduce stigma among 14 year old school students. The participating schools were two grammar (selective) schools and three comprehensive (non-selective) schools. At the start of the lesson, the students were asked 'What sorts of words or phrases might you use to describe someone who experiences mental health problems?' Words and terms used to refer to mental illness were enumerated. Using the grounded theory approach, words and terms were grouped in terms of their denotative and connotative meanings. Labels were then derived to capture the key themes attached by the students to the concepts of mental illness. The frequencies of occurrence for each word were also tabulated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>400 of the 472 participating students (85%) provided 250 words and terms to describe a person with mental illness. Five themes were identified from the data. The first theme called 'popular derogatory terms' (116 items) accounted for nearly half of the words examined. The second theme occurred less often and was described as 'negative emotional state' (61 items). The third theme demonstrated the confusion of young people between physical disabilities, learning difficulties and mental health problems (38 items). The use of psychiatric diagnoses (15 items) and terms related to violence (9 items) were unexpectedly uncommon.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest the hypothesis that help-seeking by mentally ill young people may be improved by interventions that address both their lack of factual information about mental illness, and those which reduce their strong negative emotional reactions towards people with mental illness.</p

A narrative review on the similarities and dissimilarities between myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (me/cfs) and sickness behavior

It is of importance whether myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a variant of sickness behavior. The latter is induced by acute infections/injury being principally mediated through proinflammatory cytokines. Sickness is a beneficial behavioral response that serves to enhance recovery, conserves energy and plays a role in the resolution of inflammation. There are behavioral/symptomatic similarities (for example, fatigue, malaise, hyperalgesia) and dissimilarities (gastrointestinal symptoms, anorexia and weight loss) between sickness and ME/CFS. While sickness is an adaptive response induced by proinflammatory cytokines, ME/CFS is a chronic, disabling disorder, where the pathophysiology is related to activation of immunoinflammatory and oxidative pathways and autoimmune responses. While sickness behavior is a state of energy conservation, which plays a role in combating pathogens, ME/CFS is a chronic disease underpinned by a state of energy depletion. While sickness is an acute response to infection/injury, the trigger factors in ME/CFS are less well defined and encompass acute and chronic infections, as well as inflammatory or autoimmune diseases. It is concluded that sickness behavior and ME/CFS are two different conditions

A European multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled monotherapy clinical trial of milnacipran in treatment of fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study investigated the efficacy and safety of milnacipran in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) in a European population. METHODS: Outpatients diagnosed with FM according to 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria (N = 884) were randomized to placebo (n = 449) or milnacipran 200 mg/day (n = 435) for 17 weeks (4-week dose escalation, 12-week stable dose, 9-day down-titration), followed by a 2-week posttreatment period. The primary efficacy criterion was a 2-measure composite responder analysis requiring patients to achieve simultaneous improvements in pain (>or= 30% improvement from baseline in visual analog scale, 24-hour morning recall) and a rating of "very much" or "much" improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. If responder analysis was positive, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was included as an additional key primary efficacy measure. RESULTS: At the end of the stable dose period (Week 16), milnacipran 200 mg/day showed significant improvements from baseline relative to placebo in the 2-measure composite responder criteria (p = 0.0003) and FIQ total score (p = 0.015). Significant improvements were also observed in multiple secondary efficacy endpoints, including Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (p = 0.025), SF-36 Mental Component Summary (p = 0.007), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (p = 0.006), and Multiple Ability Self-Report Questionnaire (p = 0.041). Milnacipran was safe and well tolerated; nausea, hyperhidrosis, and headache were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSION: Milnacipran is an effective and safe treatment for pain and other predominant symptoms of FM. Registered as trial no. NCT00436033