Social acceptance of people with chronic diseases

Paweł  Juraszek; Mateusz Grajek

doi:10.59400/apr.v3i2.1401

Social acceptance of people with chronic diseases

Paweł Juraszek Department of Public Health, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 41902 Bytom, Poland
Mateusz Grajek Department of Public Health, Faculty of Public Health in Bytom, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 41902 Bytom, Poland

Ariticle ID: 1401

153 Views, 84 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/apr.v3i2.1401

Keywords: acceptance; stereotypes; chronic diseases; resentment

Abstract

The discussion concerns social acceptance of people with chronic diseases, covering the definition of acceptance, its determinants, stereotypes, and groups of diseases that most often face social reluctance. Social acceptance is a key element of healthy social functioning and implies agreement that people with chronic diseases exist, are respected and treated equally with healthy people. It is a process dependent on education, personal experience, social support and culture. Research indicates that people with mental illness, HIV/AIDS, skin diseases and obesity often experience stigma and discrimination. In particular, people with mental illnesses face negative stereotypes, such as being seen as dangerous and unable to function in society. People living with HIV/AIDS are often victims of social ostracism due to fear of infection and moral judgments. Skin diseases such as psoriasis and obesity also lead to social isolation and discrimination. Another group is people with cancer, who often experience social resentment due to fear, ignorance and stereotypes associated with the disease. Social education and psychological and social support are key to reducing stigma and improving the quality of life for these people. Practical measures to increase social acceptance include: educational programs, media campaigns, psychological support, legislative changes, and local and community initiatives. All of these activities can help reduce stigma and discrimination against people with chronic diseases, promoting greater empathy and understanding in society.

References

[1] Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science & Medicine, 48(8), 977–988.

[2] Angermeyer, M. C., & Dietrich, S. (2006). Public beliefs about and attitudes towards people with mental illness: A review of population studies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 113(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00699.x

[3] Chambers, S. K., Dunn, J., Occhipinti, S., et al. (2012). A systematic review of the impact of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer outcomes. BMC Cancer, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-184

[4] Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry, 1(1), 16–20.

[5] Corrigan, P. W., Edwards, A. B., Green, A., et al. (2001). Prejudice, Social Distance, and Familiarity with Mental Illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27(2), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a006868

[6] Else-Quest, N. M., LoConte, N. K., Schiller, J. H., et al. (2009). Perceived stigma, self-blame, and adjustment among lung, breast and prostate cancer patients. Psychology & Health, 24(8), 949–964. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440802074664

[7] Fisher, J. D., Fisher, W. A., Amico, K. R., et al. (2003). An information-motivation-behavioral skills model of adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Health Psychology, 25(4), 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.462

[8] Ginsburg, I. H., & Link, B. G. (1989). Feelings of stigmatization in patients with psoriasis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 20(1), 53–63.

[9] Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.

[10] Herek, G. M. (1999). AIDS and stigma. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(7), 1106–1116.

[11] Lebel, S., & Devins, G. M. (2008). Stigma in cancer patients whose behavior may have contributed to their disease. Future Oncology, 4(5), 717–733.

[12] National Psoriasis Foundation. (2020). Psoriasis statistics. Available online: https://www.psoriasis.org/psoriasis-statistics/ (accessed on 21 June 2024).

[13] Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity, 17(5), 941–964.

[14] Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161.

[15] UNAIDS. (2020). Global HIV & AIDS statistics—2020 fact sheet. Available online: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet (accessed on 21 June 2024).

[16] Wakefield, C. E., Olver, I. N., Whitford, H. S., & Pittman, K. (2016). Support after lung cancer diagnosis: perceptions from Australian cancer support groups. European Journal of Cancer Care, 25(3), 356–366.

[17] World Health Organization. (2017). Obesity and overweight. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 21 June 2024).

Published

2024-07-17

How to Cite

Juraszek, P., & Grajek, M. (2024). Social acceptance of people with chronic diseases. Applied Psychology Research, 3(2), 1401. https://doi.org/10.59400/apr.v3i2.1401

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This experiment examined the influences of number of co-actors and audience size on manual dexterity task performance and subjective reactions such as perceived effort and arousal. Predictions derived from social impact theory and the self-attention perspective’s other-total ratio indicated that both number of co-actors and audience size should influence responses. Undergraduate students (N = 128) responded as 1, 2, 4, or 8 group members who were observed in counterbalanced fashion by 1, 2, 4, or 8 audience members for four performance trials. The predictions of increased task performance with larger audience sizes and decreased performance as number of co-actors increased were not supported. Participants’ rated arousal was somewhat consistent with the predictions from the self-attention perspective and social impact theory. Self-reported effort was consistent with the predicted patterns, but not always significantly so. The influence of number of others is moderated by the objective-subjective nature of responses of real co-actors performing in front of live audiences.

The level of research undertaken on the academic psychological contract, and its influence on academics’ behaviour is limited. This paper seeks to consider the academic psychological contract, by reviewing its manifestation within the role and the influence on their undertaking of the role. Particularly important is academics’ interpretation of the role and what they consider important. Within this, the paper considers in-role and extra-role activities and what may be the grey areas in which time is spent. The research adopts the combined usage of phenomenology with interpretivist processes to investigate the insights of eighteen academics at nine UK University Business Schools. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data to consider the constructs’ manifestation. Key aspects of behaviour were identified as discretionary effort autonomy and managerialism, with links to academic citizenship.