ArticlePLOS mental health2024
Effects of diagnostic labels on perceptions of marginal cases of mental ill-health.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Formal comment: Diagnostic labelling of mental health in young people: Perspectives from Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Age-related Gendered Diminishment: toward understanding and interventions for a common psychological experience in post-midlife women.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Testing the diagnostic expansion hypothesis with a population-based survey of attitudes to depression in Australia.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Label matters: how labeling and diagnosis affect lay perception of people with depressive symptoms.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two experimental studies (Ns = 261, 684) investigated how diagnostic labels affect perceptions of people experiencing marginal levels of mental ill-health. These effects offer insight into the consequences of diagnostic "concept creep", in which concepts of mental illness broaden to include less severe phenomena. The studies found consistent evidence that diagnostic labeling increases the perception that people experiencing marginal problems require professional treatment, and some evidence that it increases empathy towards them and support for affording them special allowances at work, school, and home. The studies also indicated that labels may reduce the control people are perceived to have over their problems and their likelihood of recovering from them. These findings point to the potential mixed blessings of broad diagnostic concepts and the cultural trends responsible for them. Expansive concepts may promote help-seeking, empathy, and support, but also undermine perceived agency and expectations that problems can be overcome.
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.