Search

Background: Evidence suggests that mainstream media coverage of mental illness tends to focus on factors such as crime and violence. Thus, mental health advocates have argued that alternative portrayals are necessary to reduce stigma. Aim: The aim of this paper is to compare the tone and content of mainstream TV coverage of mental illness with educational videos produced by citizen journalists with mental illness. Methods: We trained three groups of people with mental illness in citizen journalism and participatory video. These groups then produced a series of educational videos about mental illness (n = 26). Simultaneously, we systematically collected TV clips about mental illness from a major Canadian TV station (n = 26). We then compared the tone and content of citizen journalism videos vs. TV clips using content analysis techniques. Results: The citizen journalist videos tended to be more positive and hopeful. For example, over 60% of the citizen journalism videos focused on recovery, compared to 27% of the TV clips. Conversely, over 40% of the TV clips focused on crime, violence or legal issues, in comparison to only 23% of the citizen journalism videos. Conclusion: Citizen journalism by people with mental illness has the potential to educate the public and reduce stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The overall aim of the present paper is to elicit the subjective perceptions and experiences of people with Severe Mental Illness (SMI) involved in a Participatory Video project, with a focus on self-reported impact on recovery. There are 2 subobjectives, namely (a) to document which specific aspects (if any) of Participatory Video project participation are reported to positively influence recovery; and (b) to assess the impact of project involvement on specific dimensions of recovery. Method: In this project, 3 workgroups of people with Severe Mental Illness met approximately twice per week over a 2-year period to make and disseminate educational videos about mental illness. Workgroup participants (n = 20) took part in an in-depth semistructured qualitative interview at project end to understand their experience in the project, especially impact on recovery. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Results: At completion, participants had made 26 videos and organized 49 community screenings reaching over 1,500 people. Participants reported that regular involvement in this project fostered their recovery in a variety of ways, imparting multiple psychosocial benefits, which are summarized in 5 themes: (a) skill-acquisition, (b) platform and voice, (c) connectedness, (d) a meaningful focus, and (e) personal development. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Participatory Video is a powerful group intervention which positively benefits workgroup participants. Importantly, results overlap with other research indicating that grassroots-produced mental health themed videos can educate viewers and reduce public stigma. As such, psychiatric rehabilitation organizations should consider initiating similar projects in their own locales. Impact and Implications: Participatory Video is an innovative group program where marginalized people get together to produce documentary-type videos about their lives, which are then screened at community venues. This study found that regular involvement in a successful Participatory Video program helped foster the recovery of participants with severe mental illness. This suggests that Participatory Video is a recovery-oriented intervention, which could be initiated by mental health services and peer support organizations elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests that stigma against people with mental illness remains high. This demands innovative approaches to reduce stigma. One innovative stigma reduction method is participatory video (PV), whereby marginalized people come together to script, film and produce bottom-up educational videos about shared issues. These videos are then shown to target groups. This paper has two objectives (i) to examine the feasibility of using participatory video with people with severe mental illness (SMI); and (ii) to assess viewer impressions of the resultant videos and subsequent subjective impact. Methods: We conducted a participatory action research study with three workgroups of people with severe mental illness situated in different Canadian cities, who set out to create and disseminate locally-grounded mental-health themed videos. This involved process and outcome evaluation to assess feasibility and impact. Specifically, we (i) observed fidelity to a co-designed action-plan in all three workgroups; (ii) distributed brief purpose-built questionnaires to viewers at organized screenings to assess preliminary impact; and (iii) conducted focus groups with viewers to elicit further impressions of the videos and subsequent subjective impact. Results: The three workgroups achieved high-fidelity to the action-plan. They successfully produced a total of 26 videos, over double the targeted number, during an 18-month period. Likewise, the workgroups organized 49 screenings at a range of venues attended by 1542 people, again exceeding the action-plan targets. Results from the viewer questionnaires (N = 1104, response rate 72%) indicated that viewers reported that their understandings had improved after watching the videos. Four themes emerged from six viewer focus groups (N = 30), with participants frequently noting that videos were (i) educational and informative; (ii) real and relatable; (iii) attention-grabbing; and (iv) change-inducing. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first large-scale multi-site project examining the feasibility and impact of a participatory video program for people with severe mental illness. The results indicate that participatory video is a feasible method in this population and gives preliminary evidence that resultant videos can reduce viewer stigma. Thus, participatory video should be considered a promising practice in the ongoing effort to reduce mental illness stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has been substantially revised by the Canadian Psychiatric Association's Research Committee and approved for republication by the CPA's Board of Directors on May 3, 2017. The original policy paper1 was developed by the Scientific and Research Affairs Standing Committee and approved by the Board of Directors on November 10, 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]