T124. MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY AND DEMOGRAPHIC PREDICTORS OF RESPONSE TO AN ANTI-STIGMA INTERVENTION

Abstract

Background: Public stigma toward individuals with schizophrenia (SZ) produces negative perceptions of SZ patients, including beliefs that a disproportionate number of these individuals are dangerous, frightening, or unpredictable. These (mis)perceptions often isolate SZ individuals from the general population, contributing to negative outcomes for the patient, (e.g., difficulties in self‐esteem, social adaptation, and employment prospects), and for society, (e.g., financial burden, less supportive care for families, etc.). As such, anti‐stigma interventions (ASI) that are widely effective across the populace are warranted, and clarification on the mechanisms of change in these interventions are essential to their success. The present study examined the efficacy of a novel combination of established antistigma interventions in general population participants. It further aimed to determine the role of mental health history and demographic characteristics in baseline stigma, and their contribution to intervention efficacy. Methods: Participants (N=53) completed a demographic questionnaire that assessed age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, occupation, and education. Exposure to individuals with mental illness was assessed across self, familial, and other‐relationship domains. Exposure metrics included contact with self or others with mental illness (Y/N), frequency of contact, nature of the relationship, and likely diagnoses. Participants were randomized to the anti‐stigma intervention (SZ psychoeducation+video contact) or control (neutral article+video) condition. The Social Distance Scale (SDS) assessed baseline and follow‐up stigma. ANOVA assessed intervention efficacy, and separate multiple linear regressions assessed relative contribution of mental health history and demographic variables to efficaciousness. Results: ANOVA results yielded a significant interaction effect (group x time: p<0.01), where participants in the intervention group produced equivalent mean SDS scores at baseline relative to the controls (group at time 1: p=.53), but lower mean SDS scores at follow‐up (group at time 2: p <0.05, R2=0.17), with family history significantly contributing to the model (β= ‐.36, p <0.05), but not follow‐up stigma (β= ‐.07, p=.29). Discussion: The novel, comprehensive anti‐stigma intervention was successful in decreasing SZ‐related stigma relative to controls in a general population sample. Family history of mental illness best predicted a reduction in stigma following ASI. Furthermore, lower education predicted higher stigma at baseline only, and not at follow‐up, suggesting that despite education level, all members of the public may benefit from ASI, especially if previously exposed to family mental illness. It may follow that our most stable traits such as age, gender, and race may have less weight for clinical and social policy decisions, whereas exposure to family mental illness could allow for those more frequently impacted to be most receptive to anti‐stigma interventions. Future studies that continue to clarify the mechanisms of change for de‐stigmatization are warranted.