Negative public attitudes towards persons suffering from mental illness have been identified as an obstacle for recovery from illness and becoming full participants in society [
1]. The concept of stigmatization has been described and operational definitions have been made by various researchers [
2]. Although there is no clear consensus, stigmatization of people with mental illness is usually described as a complex of problems emanating from a lack of knowledge about mental health problems, negative attitudes and excluding or avoiding behaviours towards individuals suffering from mental health problems. For those who are subjected to stigma and their relatives this leads to a perception of the public as ignorant, prejudiced and discriminating in their view of mental illness [
1].
It has been shown that stigmatization reduces life chances for persons suffering from mental illness. The negative effects include less access to mental health services and to advances in psychiatric treatment [
3,
4], to psychosocial stress, to low socio-economic status and to delay in appropriate help seeking [
5]. Relatives of mentally ill persons identify stigma as a key problem that causes their ill relatives a lowered self-esteem, difficulties in making and keeping friends, and a tendency to deny that they have a mental illness [
6]. The relatives also experience burden due to the stigma associated with mental illness. In a study investigating family stigma one group of relatives reported thoughts of life and death in terms of their relatives and themselves.. Eighteen per cent of the relatives had sometimes felt that the patient would have been better off dead. Ten per cent of the family members in the same study reported that they now and then had experienced suicidal thoughts [
7].
Persons with a diagnosis of mental disorder also present difficulties in seeking and keeping work. In a study of people suffering from schizophrenia in five European countries the employment rate ranged from 5% (England) to a maximum of 23% (Italy) [
8]. One explanation for the low employment rate is that employers discriminate against persons who have a history of psychiatric treatment. In a study of 200 Human Resource Officers in UK companies it was shown that a history of mental illness significantly reduced the chances of employment in comparison with a history of diabetes [
9]. Two studies in California found that employers perceived people with mental illness as being as undesirable as ex-convicts and that the only group they were more reluctant to hire were people with active tuberculosis [
10].
To suffer from mental health problems also leads in many cases to a process of identity transformation where persons lose their previously held or desired identities and adopt a stigmatised view of themselves. This process is referred to as self-stigma [
11], internalised stigma [
12] or anticipated stigma [
13]. Self-stigma has been associated with reductions in protective psychological variables such as hope [
14], self-esteem [
15,
16], self-efficacy [
17], empowerment [
17,
18] and recovery beliefs [
18]. It is also associated with lower quality of life [
15,
17] and an increase in avoidant coping strategies such as withdrawal and secrecy.
Several programs to fight stigma have been initiated as a consequence of the research findings that have indicated stigmatization as a threat to successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with mental illness. Some of these programs have been international, such as the World Psychiatric Association's Global Programme against Stigma and Discrimination because of Schizophrenia [
19], others have been national such as the Changing Minds Campaign by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom [
20,
21], the PSYKE-Campaign in Sweden [
22] and the National Mental Health charity SANE Australia [
23]. The overall ambitions have been to increase public knowledge about mental illness and its treatment possibilities, to create more positive attitudes towards people with mental illness and to reduce prejudice and discrimination. To some extent the aims of these campaigns have been achieved [
19,
24]. However, despite all efforts to reduce stigma through public campaigns the results are not convincing and the field suffers from a lack of evidence about what works [
1]. The process appears to be a slow one. In a recent study 73% of a cohort of persons suffering from mental illness believed that most employers would pass over an application from a former psychiatric patient in favour of another applicant and that they are not considered as trustworthy as the average citizen (67%) or as intelligent as other people (56%) [
25]. In another recent study a list of 250 derogatory labels used among fourteen year old schoolchildren to stigmatize people with mental illness were described. The authors suggest that this wide-ranging and negative number of terms about mental illness appears to emanate from the media and from family and peers [
26]. All these findings indicate a quite persistent negative attitude in the general population.
There is a need for further work in the struggle against stigma and valid and reliable instruments need to be tested in order to measure effects of interventions. Link et al [
27] have reviewed different methods for measuring mental health stigma but there is little information about psychometric properties of the instruments used in the various studies. There is often information about the internal consistency of the different scales but nothing about their test-retest reliability. The reliability in this respect is crucial when using the scales to evaluate the rate of success associated with different interventions. The present study was carried out to determine psychometric properties of two instruments used in earlier studies. The instruments chosen were: "The self-report inventory of fear of and behavioural intentions toward the mentally ill (FABI) [
28,
29] and the set of questions used in the campaign "Changing Minds: Every Family in the Land" initiated by the Royal College of Psychiatrists [
20]. The purpose was to create Swedish versions of instruments that could be used in research on attitudes towards persons with mental illness. Being as no data concerning psychometric properties concerning these scales have been presented it is important to conduct a trial to establish this information.