Background. Population ageing and changing admission criteria have brought a growing number of older people with mental disorders into long-term care services, both residential and home-based. Provider-based stigma is associated with lower quality of care and poorer outcomes. The two settings differ in workload, training, peer exchange and staff isolation, characteristics that could influence stigma in opposite directions, but no study has directly compared them, and evidence on staff caring for older people remains limited. Aim of the study. To measure stigma towards mental disorders among staff working in care services for older people, compare its levels between residential and home-based settings, and explore, through focus groups, staff experiences of caring for these patients. Materials and methods. An observational mixed-methods study with a sequential explanatory design was conducted at IPAB EnEA (Treviso). The quantitative component used the 15-item Italian version of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), administered online from 16 January to 16 February 2026, together with a demographic and professional questionnaire. Total and subscale scores (attitudes, social distance, disclosure/help-seeking) were compared using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests; 95% confidence intervals of the differences with Welch’s t-test; internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Two focus groups (residential setting, 21 participants; home-based setting, 4) were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Graneheim and Lundman. Results. Forty-seven staff members responded. The mean total score was 34.17 (SD 6.94; observed range 19-48), on a theoretical range of 15-75 with a midpoint of 45. A stigmatizing attitude was expressed by one-third of the sample in only one of the 15 items (greater ease in caring for a person with a physical illness, 34.0%). Internal consistency was acceptable for the total score (α = 0.78) and inadequate for the disclosure subscale (α = 0.36). No difference emerged between the residential (34.58) and home-based (33.30; p = 0.513) settings. In a post hoc analysis restricted to OSS/OTA staff, the only professional group represented in both settings in sufficient numbers, the difference was 6.34 points (p = 0.049; 95% CI 0.70-11.99), which could not be disentangled from shift type. Higher scores were associated with older age (p = 0.009), lower educational attainment (p = 0.018), the role of healthcare assistant (OSS/OTA) (p = 0.029), and rotating shifts (p = 0.043), but not with perceived adequacy of training. In both focus groups, difficulty was attributed not to the person with a mental disorder, but to the gap between their needs and the available resources; the diagnosis guided care rather than creating distance, whereas its absence made the work more difficult. Conclusions. Stigma levels were low and did not differ between the two settings. The settings differ more in the mechanisms generating difficulty, time and environment in the residential setting, competence and working alone in the home-based setting, than in attitudes towards patients. The experiences reported by staff are closer to structural stigma than to individual prejudice and identify operational procedures and referral pathways as the main areas for intervention.
Background. L’invecchiamento della popolazione e il cambiamento dei criteri di ammissione hanno portato un numero crescente di persone anziane con disturbi mentali nei servizi di assistenza a lungo termine, sia residenziali sia domiciliari. Lo stigma degli operatori è associato a una minore qualità dell’assistenza e a peggiori esiti. I due contesti differiscono per carico di lavoro, formazione, confronto collegiale e isolamento dell’operatore, caratteristiche che potrebbero influenzare lo stigma in direzioni opposte, ma nessuno studio li ha confrontati direttamente e le evidenze sul personale che assiste gli anziani restano limitate. Scopo dello studio. Misurare lo stigma verso il disturbo mentale negli operatori dei servizi assistenziali per anziani, confrontarne i livelli tra contesto residenziale e domiciliare ed esplorare, mediante focus group, il vissuto degli operatori nell’assistenza a questi pazienti. Materiali e metodi. Studio osservazionale a metodo misto con disegno esplicativo sequenziale, condotto presso IPAB EnEA (Treviso). La componente quantitativa ha utilizzato la versione italiana a 15 item della Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), somministrata online dal 16 gennaio al 16 febbraio 2026 insieme a una scheda anagrafica e professionale. Il punteggio totale e quelli di sottoscala (atteggiamenti, distanza sociale, divulgazione / richiesta di aiuto) sono stati confrontati con i test di Mann-Whitney e Kruskal-Wallis; gli intervalli di confidenza al 95% delle differenze con il test t di Welch; la coerenza interna è stata valutata con l’alfa di Cronbach. Due focus group (contesto residenziale, 21 partecipanti; domiciliare, 4) sono stati analizzati con l’analisi qualitativa del contenuto secondo Graneheim e Lundman. Risultati. Hanno risposto 47 operatori. Il punteggio medio totale è risultato pari a 34,17 (DS 6,94; valori osservati 19-48) su un intervallo teorico di 15-75 con punto medio 45. Un atteggiamento stigmatizzante è stato espresso da un terzo del campione in uno solo dei 15 item (maggiore facilità nell’assistere una persona con malattia fisica, 34,0%). La coerenza interna è risultata accettabile per il punteggio totale (α = 0,78) e inadeguata per la sottoscala della divulgazione (α = 0,36). Non è emersa alcuna differenza tra contesto residenziale (34,58) e domiciliare (33,30; p = 0,513). In un’analisi post hoc limitata agli OSS/OTA, unico gruppo professionale presente in entrambi i contesti in numerosità utile, la differenza è risultata pari a 6,34 punti (p = 0,049; IC 95% 0,70-11,99), non separabile dal tipo di turno. Punteggi più elevati sono risultati associati a maggiore età (p = 0,009), minore titolo di studio (p = 0,018), ruolo di OSS/OTA (p = 0,029) e turno a rotazione (p = 0,043), ma non all’adeguatezza percepita della formazione. In entrambi i focus group la difficoltà è stata attribuita non alla persona con disturbo mentale, ma allo scarto tra i suoi bisogni e le risorse disponibili; la diagnosi orientava l’assistenza anziché creare distanza, mentre la sua assenza rendeva il lavoro più difficile. Conclusioni. I livelli di stigma sono risultati bassi e non differivano tra i due contesti. I contesti divergono nei meccanismi che generano la difficoltà, tempo e ambiente nel residenziale, competenza e lavoro in solitudine nel domiciliare, più che negli atteggiamenti verso i pazienti. Le esperienze riferite dagli operatori sono più vicine allo stigma strutturale che al pregiudizio individuale e indicano nelle procedure operative e nei percorsi di invio le principali aree di intervento.
Lo stigma degli operatori verso l'anziano con disturbo mentale: uno studio comparativo tra residenzialità e assistenza domiciliare
SANZONE, MICHAEL
2025/2026
Abstract
Background. Population ageing and changing admission criteria have brought a growing number of older people with mental disorders into long-term care services, both residential and home-based. Provider-based stigma is associated with lower quality of care and poorer outcomes. The two settings differ in workload, training, peer exchange and staff isolation, characteristics that could influence stigma in opposite directions, but no study has directly compared them, and evidence on staff caring for older people remains limited. Aim of the study. To measure stigma towards mental disorders among staff working in care services for older people, compare its levels between residential and home-based settings, and explore, through focus groups, staff experiences of caring for these patients. Materials and methods. An observational mixed-methods study with a sequential explanatory design was conducted at IPAB EnEA (Treviso). The quantitative component used the 15-item Italian version of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), administered online from 16 January to 16 February 2026, together with a demographic and professional questionnaire. Total and subscale scores (attitudes, social distance, disclosure/help-seeking) were compared using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests; 95% confidence intervals of the differences with Welch’s t-test; internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Two focus groups (residential setting, 21 participants; home-based setting, 4) were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Graneheim and Lundman. Results. Forty-seven staff members responded. The mean total score was 34.17 (SD 6.94; observed range 19-48), on a theoretical range of 15-75 with a midpoint of 45. A stigmatizing attitude was expressed by one-third of the sample in only one of the 15 items (greater ease in caring for a person with a physical illness, 34.0%). Internal consistency was acceptable for the total score (α = 0.78) and inadequate for the disclosure subscale (α = 0.36). No difference emerged between the residential (34.58) and home-based (33.30; p = 0.513) settings. In a post hoc analysis restricted to OSS/OTA staff, the only professional group represented in both settings in sufficient numbers, the difference was 6.34 points (p = 0.049; 95% CI 0.70-11.99), which could not be disentangled from shift type. Higher scores were associated with older age (p = 0.009), lower educational attainment (p = 0.018), the role of healthcare assistant (OSS/OTA) (p = 0.029), and rotating shifts (p = 0.043), but not with perceived adequacy of training. In both focus groups, difficulty was attributed not to the person with a mental disorder, but to the gap between their needs and the available resources; the diagnosis guided care rather than creating distance, whereas its absence made the work more difficult. Conclusions. Stigma levels were low and did not differ between the two settings. The settings differ more in the mechanisms generating difficulty, time and environment in the residential setting, competence and working alone in the home-based setting, than in attitudes towards patients. The experiences reported by staff are closer to structural stigma than to individual prejudice and identify operational procedures and referral pathways as the main areas for intervention.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Sanzone_Michael.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
1.63 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.63 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/116706