ArticleThe mental health clinician2018
Evaluation of perceptions and knowledge of mental illness in the United States through crowdsourcing.
Article in The mental health clinician, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCrowdsourcing is a method of data collection with possible benefits in assessing perceptions of mental illness in a large US population.
methodsThe objective was to describe perceptions and trends of stigma surrounding mental illness in the United States using crowdsourcing. An online survey was conducted evaluating adults in the United States recruited via the online resource Amazon Mechanical Turk. Questions evaluated demographics and perceptions of mental illness. Survey data were adjusted for demographic variables and compared via logistic regression.
resultsRespondents (n = 1422) were predominately 18 to 30 years of age (n = 743; 52.3%) and white (n = 1101; 77.4%). Over half reported an individual close to them had mental illness (n = 932; 65.5%), and more than one quarter (n = 397; 27.9%) reported having a current or previous mental illness. Non-whites were less likely to agree that: medications are effective (odds ratio [OR] 0.63); they would be comfortable around a coworker with mental illness (OR 0.66); and mental illness is inheritable (OR 0.74). They are also more likely to agree that mental illness is preventable (OR 1.49). Individuals reporting mental illness were more likely to agree that medications (OR 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.74) and talk therapy (OR 1.46; 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.90) are effective. Those reporting DISCUSSION: Crowdsourcing may be an effective way to obtain information regarding demographics, stigma, and mental illness. Personal experiences with mental illness, ethnicity, and educational level appear to continue to impact perceptions of mental illness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.