Blythe Buchholz, Stephanie Aylward, Sue McKenzie and Patrick Corrigan
Disclosure seems to be a useful strategy for adults to deal with both the public and self-stigma of mental illness. However, youth may face a different set of risks when coming…
Abstract
Purpose
Disclosure seems to be a useful strategy for adults to deal with both the public and self-stigma of mental illness. However, youth may face a different set of risks when coming out with their experiences. The purpose of this paper is to examine youth, parent, and teacher perspectives on the costs and benefits of disclosure by middle- and high school-aged youth to better understand these risks.
Design/methodology/approach
Focus groups were conducted with questions framed to elicit the different ways mental health challenges are discussed in schools and families.
Findings
Surprisingly, the benefits of disclosure seemed to far outweigh the costs across groups. Benefits included ways to deal with stigma, reducing isolation, and “differentness,” as well as the pursuit of mental health services if needed. Costs included harsh responses to disclosure by peers and family members. Participants shared strategies used to minimize risk, including where and with whom youth might share their stories.
Social implications
The results suggest many youth have disclosed their experiences with mental health challenges and have received mixed responses; these reactions often serve as the barometer for future disclosure decisions. Other youth are considering disclosure in a variety of settings, but are unsure how to go about it safely. Implications for addressing stigma are discussed.
Originality/value
To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative research study conducted with youth about disclosure of mental illness experiences. These results will help guide modification of programming that could be beneficial in aiding disclosure decisions and reducing disclosure-related risks for youth who come out.
Details
Keywords
Michael James Walsh, Stephanie Alice Baker and Matthew Wade
To respond to the COVID-19 “infodemic” and combat fraud and misinformation about the virus, social media platforms coordinated with government healthcare agencies around the world…
Abstract
Purpose
To respond to the COVID-19 “infodemic” and combat fraud and misinformation about the virus, social media platforms coordinated with government healthcare agencies around the world to elevate authoritative content about the novel coronavirus. These public health authorities included national and global public health organisations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). In this article, the authors evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy by asking two key questions: (1) Did people engage with authoritative health content on social media? (2) Was this content trusted?
Design/methodology/approach
The authors explore these issues by drawing on data from a global online questionnaire on “Public Trust in Experts” (n = 429) conducted during the initial phase of the pandemic in May 2020, a crucial period when reliable information was urgently required to influence behaviour and minimise harm.
Findings
The authors found that while the majority of those surveyed noticed authoritative health content online, there remained significant issues in terms of Internet users trusting the information shared by government healthcare agencies and public health authorities online.
Originality/value
In what follows, the authors examine the role of trust in implementing this novel public health strategy and assess the capacity for such policies to reduce individual and social harm.
Peer review
The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-12-2021-0655