A new analysis clarifies a crucial point: “mental health stigma” is not one problem but two distinct challenges. Distinguishing between stigma toward psychotic disorders and stigma toward common conditions like depression and anxiety matters for effective campaigns in Thailand’s post-pandemic recovery. Policymakers, healthcare workers, and communities can use these insights to craft more precise, impactful efforts.
Stigma remains a major barrier to care. Recent coverage explains that lumping all mental illnesses together undermines anti-stigma work. In Thailand, as in many countries, public responses often conflate different conditions, leading to misperceptions and reduced access to services. The Department of Mental Health notes rising mental health hospitalizations and suicide rates in the post-pandemic period, underscoring the urgency of targeted strategies.
Personal experiences ground the analysis. A physician who once treated a rural town’s patients recalls hiding his own depression to avoid judgment and seeking treatment far from home. His story echoes in Thailand, where close-knit communities can offer support but also foster secrecy. Self-stigma—feeling personally ashamed—keeps many Thai people from seeking help, especially in more traditional settings.
Two primary stigma types emerge:
Psychosis-Linked Stigma: Disorders like schizophrenia provoke fear and distrust, with some believing affected individuals are dangerous. Yet evidence shows only a minority of people with psychotic disorders are violent; they are more often risked by stigma than by acts of violence. In Thailand, public bias can lead to social exclusion and hinder access to community-based care. A 2019 Thai survey found that a majority believed people with schizophrenia could not be trusted, illustrating the depth of the problem.
Depression and Anxiety Stigma: These common conditions are often minimized as mere lack of resilience orWillpower. Across Asia, including Thailand, many perceive depression as a personal failing rather than a treatable illness. This mindset promotes unhelpful advice to “snap out of it,” which ignores biological and psychological realities.
Experts emphasize that addressing both stigma types is essential. Leading researchers note that about half of the global population will experience some mental health issue in a lifetime, and mental illnesses contribute significantly to disability. Recent global statistics highlight suicide as a major concern, intersecting with broader health challenges.
Thai culture adds layers to the stigma conversation. Buddhism emphasizes compassion, yet some interpretations can link illness to karma or past actions. A 2022 study from a major Thai university found generational differences: older Thais often view mental illness as personal or family failing, while younger Thais tend to frame it in medical terms. These attitudes shape how stigma is felt and resisted in different communities.
Practical implications emerge from this understanding:
For psychosis, campaigns should counter myths that linked violence with schizophrenia and promote the reality that treatment allows stable, productive lives. Thailand’s pilots in community-based psychiatric care show promise, though local fear can impede progress. Engaging community ambassadors who have managed psychotic illnesses can humanize these conditions and reduce misinformation.
For depression and anxiety, messages should challenge the notion that these illnesses reflect weakness. Sharing recovery stories from well-known figures can help normalize treatment. Public disclosures by Thai celebrities who have faced depression have sparked supportive public reactions, signaling a shift in attitudes.
Actionable recommendations call for triaging efforts toward three groups: youth, employers, and government bodies. Thai youth engagement has grown through university mental health clubs and online platforms, but workplace mental health remains underdeveloped. A 2024 survey indicated that fewer than 10% of employers provide mental health benefits or training, despite rising stress and burnout.
A key anti-stigma tactic is “social exposure”: direct, positive interaction with people who have mental illnesses. In Thailand this approach supports peer programs in psychiatric settings and the broader inclusion of lived-experience voices at health forums.
Campaigns should avoid focusing on a single stigma type. Addressing only the perception of weakness tied to depression or only fear linked to psychosis will miss critical gaps in services and policy. Thailand’s mental health budget remains a small share of health spending, and media representations often skew negative, making a two-pronged strategy urgent.
What should Thailand do next? First, public campaigns should explicitly differentiate between stigma based on fear and stigma based on perceived weakness, tailoring messages to Thai social norms and Buddhist values of compassion. Second, mental health literacy should be integrated into school curricula to build early understanding and reduce prejudice. Third, incentives should encourage Thai workplaces to adopt mental health-friendly policies, reducing barriers to care for workers facing stress, anxiety, or depression.
Family, teachers, and community leaders can play pivotal roles. Open conversation and compassionate support help people seek help early and challenge stigma. Sharing success stories—across public and private sectors—reinforces that recovery is possible and that Thai society should respond with care, not judgment.
For readers seeking help, local health centers and the Department of Mental Health provide resources, and the national mental health hotline offers confidential support and referrals.
In summary, distinguishing between psychosis-related stigma and depression/anxiety stigma enables more precise, effective strategies. By combining culturally sensitive messaging, youth-focused education, workplace mental health initiatives, and real-life storytelling, Thailand can reduce stigma and improve access to care for all.