Medical student perceptions of mental illness: a cross-sectional transnational study in two medical schools

Abstract

Background: Despite shifting global attitudes, mental illness remains highly stigmatised amongst practicing doctors. This has wider implications on doctors’ training to care for patients with mental illness. There is need for exploration of the presence and mitigation of stigma in early medical education to prevent such attitudes propagating into clinical practice. Thus, this study explores whether stigmatising attitudes are detectable amongst medical students in London and Singapore and examines whether they are ameliorated by specific curricular and welfare features of formal medical education, utilising the Mental Illness Stigma Framework (MISF). Methods: A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Medical students at Imperial College London (UK; n = 211) and Nanyang Technological University (Singapore; n = 141) completed a validated scale (the OMS-HC-15) to assess attitudes towards mental illness. Semi-structured interviews were conducted (Imperial: n = 12, NTU: n = 8) until theoretical saturation was reached. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and comparatively using SPSS and interview data subjected to inductive thematic analysis. Results: Total OMS-HC-15 scores ranged from 19–51 for Imperial (n = 211) and 16–53 for NTU (n = 141). No significant differences in overall stigma scores were found between the two schools (p = 0.24), nor when comparing year groups within each school. Four themes were identified across interview data: student perceptions, impacts of medical school culture, university support, and curricular impacts on mental illness perceptions. Themes allowed identification of aspects of medical school that were well-received and warranted further emphasis by students, alongside areas for improvement. Conclusion: Mental health stigma was identified in two medical schools, with differing cultures. Mean stigma scores obtained were comparable between both UK and Singaporean medical students. Nuanced differences were identified via subgroup analysis, and the MISF identified both shared and country-specific drivers for this stigma across the qualitative data. Actionable recommendations to mitigate this were hypothesised. Curricular improvements such as earlier psychiatric teaching and sharing of personal stories may improve future stigma scores as students’ progress through the course. Specific welfare-based changes to formal support systems were also deemed to be beneficial by students. The impacts of welfare and curricular redesign in relation to societal influence on students’ attitudes warrants further investigation, as does medical students’ self-stigma.