Skip to main content
Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health
. 2025 Dec 17;13:e8. doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118

Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region

Emmanuel Kwasi Afriyie 1,2,, Emmanuel Kofi Nti Brantuo 3, Samuel Egyakwa Ankomah 4, Emmanuel Kumah 5, Godfred Otchere 6, Precious Wonder Adekore 4, Joseph Atta Amankwah 7,8
PMCID: PMC12835938  PMID: 41608310

Abstract

Mental illness-related stigma acts as a critical barrier to care by fostering shame, fear of judgment and discrimination, which deters individuals from seeking help, delays treatment and worsens outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the forms, drivers and consequences of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking behavior. A cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2020 to March 2021. Data were collected from 419 participants using structured questionnaires, guided by the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework and the Attitudes Towards Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale for validation. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22, employing descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and multinomial logistic regression. The average age of participants was 34.5 years. Findings revealed alarmingly high stigma: economic (76.8–80.2%), social (77.1–81.2%) and psychological (71.9–82.8%). Key drivers included stereotypes of dangerousness (58.7%) and systemic healthcare discrimination (65.6%). Multinomial regression confirmed that all stigma forms significantly reduced help-seeking odds. Structural barriers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48) and internalized shame (OR = 0.53) were the strongest deterrents, with a multiplicative effect for combined economic and psychological stigma (OR = 0.41). This complex, multilayered barrier, driven by socio-cultural beliefs and structural failures, necessitates urgent, multifaceted interventions targeting public education, policy and self-stigma to improve mental health equity in rural Ghana.

Keywords: cross-sectional studies, Ghana, help-seeking behavior, health stigma and discrimination framework, mental illness-related stigma

Impact statements

This research provides critical, evidence-based insights into the complex nature of mental health stigma in a rural Ghanaian district, revealing it as a multilayered barrier driven by socio-cultural beliefs and structural failures. Our findings move beyond urban-centric data to show that stigma significantly reduces help-seeking, with economic exclusion and internalized shame being the strongest deterrents. This study offers a vital blueprint for policymakers and health advocates, demonstrating that effective anti-stigma campaigns must be multifaceted, simultaneously targeting public education, institutional policies and individual self-stigma. The evidence is crucial for designing targeted interventions to improve mental health equity in rural Ghana and similar low-resource settings globally.

Introduction

Mental illness-related stigma presents a significant global barrier to care, leading to delayed treatment, worsened symptoms, social exclusion and poor health outcomes (Sickel et al., 2014; Ssebunnya et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2023). This stigma stems from widespread misunderstanding and prejudice, causing individuals to fear being labeled, ostracized and/or judged. These fears diminish self-esteem and create a profound reluctance toward help-seeking for mental health illness (Thornicroft et al., 2022; Girma et al., 2024). With ~450 million people affected by mental illness worldwide (World Health Organization., 2022), addressing this barrier is a critical public health concern. Previous studies highlight that stigma operates at multiple, interconnected levels, creating complex barriers to care (Chukwuma et al., 2024; Thi et al., 2024).

Public stigma involves the negative attitudes and discriminatory behaviors held by the wider society (Liamputtong and Rice, 2021; Thornicroft et al., 2022). Self-stigma occurs when individuals internalize these negative beliefs, leading to shame and a loss of self-efficacy. Structural stigma refers to discriminatory policies and practices within institutions, such as healthcare systems and workplaces (Liamputtong and Rice, 2021; Thornicroft et al., 2022). Together, these forms of stigma can lead to social isolation, internalized shame and inadequate access to services, which severely impact treatment-seeking behaviors and overall health outcomes (Prizeman et al., 2023). While these dynamics are increasingly documented in high-income countries, their interplay in low-resource settings remains underexplored (Thornicroft et al., 2022).

In Ghana, for instance, ~10.7% of the population lives with a mental health condition (Ae-Ngibise et al., 2017; Metrics and Evaluation, 2024). However, most are reluctant to access mental health care (Harden et al., 2023). Existing research in Ghana has primarily focused on urban areas, neglecting rural districts where traditional beliefs and limited mental health infrastructure intensify stigma (Amadu and Hoedoafia, 2024; Daliri et al., 2024). This leaves a significant gap in understanding stigma-related factors and how they affect mental help-seeking, particularly in rural communities such as the Sekyere South District of Ghana. Although Ghana’s Mental Health Act (846 of 2012) and global calls for equity highlight the urgency of addressing stigma, a clear understanding of its context-specific manifestations in rural areas is lacking (Walker and Osei, 2017; Moitra et al., 2023).

This study addresses these gaps by examining the forms, drivers and consequences of mental illness-related stigma in the Sekyere South District, a rural region in Ghana. Using a community-based approach, we assessed how stigma operates across social, economic and healthcare systems. By incorporating perspectives from patients, caregivers and healthcare workers, this research provides novel insights into the localized barriers to help-seeking for mental health illness.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

Our study employed a descriptive cross-sectional design using quantitative methods. The design was selected as it facilitated analysis of stigma-related factors, as well as examination of associations between variables (e.g., stigma and help-seeking behavior) at a single point in time (Olsen and St George, 2004; Kesmodel, 2018). The study was conducted in the Sekyere South District of the Ashanti Region, Ghana. The district’s administrative capital is Agona Ashanti, located 37 km from Kumasi. Data were collected from November 2020 to March 2021 across four randomly selected health facilities: Agona Government Hospital, Kona Health Centre, Jamasi Health Centre and Wiamoase SDA Hospital. These facilities were chosen to represent the diverse subdistricts within the broader study area.

Study population, participant profile and sampling

The study population comprised three distinct groups, each chosen for their unique perspective on mental health stigma and help-seeking: (1) Patients: Adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with a mental health condition and actively receiving treatment. They were included to provide first-hand accounts of experienced stigma and its direct impact on their help-seeking journey; (2) Caregivers: Adults (≥18 years) caring for a patient with mental illness were selected as they often witness and are affected by stigma, which can influence their support for the patient’s treatment adherence and future help-seeking; and (3) Healthcare workers with at least 2 years of experience in mental health services. They were included to offer an institutional and professional perspective on stigma, including their observations of public attitudes and their own potential implicit biases.

Using Yamane’s formula Inline graphic for a finite population (Yamane, 1973), where n = sample size, N = population size and e = margin of error. A sample size of 399 was calculated at a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. This was increased to 419 to account for a potential 5% nonresponse rate.

A two-stage sampling technique was used. First, four health facilities were randomly selected from a pool of 12 in the district using a lottery method. Subsequently, a purposive sampling technique was employed within each selected facility to recruit the specific categories of participants. This nonprobability approach was necessary and appropriate to deliberately reach the specialized, information-rich groups central to the research question. Eligible participants were identified in collaboration with the mental health units at each facility.

Data collection instrument and procedure

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire, developed by integrating two key frameworks: (1) the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework and (2) the Attitudes Towards Seeking Professional Psychological Help (ATSPPH) Scale (Surgenor, 1985; Stangl et al., 2019). The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework guided the development of questions on the drivers, impacts and outcomes of stigma related to mental health conditions. The ATSPPH scale is a validated tool adopted to measure help-seeking attitudes. The instrument was divided into sections capturing sociodemographic characteristics, forms of stigma (measured on a 5-point Likert scale from “Not at all” to “Very often”), drivers of stigma (assessed via eight items on a 5-point Likert agreement scale) and help-seeking behavior using the validated ATSPPH scale (see Supplementary Material 1: Questionnaires). To ensure comprehension and cultural appropriateness, the instrument was translated into Twi and back-translated into English. It was pretested in a comparable district, Mamponteng, and refined for clarity and relevance. Trained research assistants administered the questionnaires in either English or Twi based on participant preference.

Validity and reliability

The validity and reliability of the instrument were strengthened through multiple strategies. Content validity was established by grounding the questionnaire in established theoretical frameworks. The reliability of the help-seeking construct was supported by the use of the psychometrically validated ATSPPH scale, and pretesting of the questionnaire confirmed the internal consistency of the adapted instrument in the local context. Furthermore, by collecting data from three distinct participant groups involving patients, caregivers and healthcare workers, the study incorporated multiple perspectives, thereby enriching the analysis of mental health stigma within the same socio-ecological system.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations) were used to summarize sociodemographic characteristics and the prevalence of stigma. Inferential statistics were applied to examine relationships; specifically, chi-square tests assessed associations between forms of stigma and sociodemographic variables, and multinomial logistic regression was employed to evaluate the impact of stigma on help-seeking attitudes while adjusting for potential confounding covariates. Statistical significance was set at a p-value < 0.05.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ghana Health Service Ethics Review Committee (GHS-ERC 040/06/21). Before data collection, all participants provided written informed consent after the study purpose, procedures, risks and benefits were explained. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses, the voluntary nature of their participation and their right to withdraw at any time during the data collection process without any penalty or consequence to their care or employment. However, none of the participants withdrew after providing informed consent.

Results

Characteristics of the participants

The study involved 419 participants from Sekyere South District, Ghana, including mental health patients, their caregivers and healthcare workers (Table 1). The sample comprised 235 females (56.0%) and 184 males (43.9%), with most (52%) aged between 20 and 35 years. Participants under 20 years and over 65 years made up smaller proportions (9.3% and 3.6%, respectively). Religious affiliation showed that 79.0% identified as Christian. Concerning marital status, 46.3% were married and 39.4% were single, with fewer being divorced (5.3%), widowed (6.4%) or separated (2.6%). Education levels varied, with 31.3% having attained tertiary education and only 9.3% having no formal education. Regarding occupation, the majority (49.9%) were traders – engaged in small-scale commerce, usually in local markets or from small storefronts – highlighting the large informal sector in the Ghanaian economy. This was followed by healthcare workers (20.8%), students (16.7%) and business owners (12.6%).

Table 1.

Summary of characteristics data of study participants (N = 419)

Characteristics Category Frequency (n) Percent (%)
Gender Male 184 43.9
Female 235 56.0
Age (years) Below 20 39 9.3
20–35 218 52.0
35–50 96 22.9
51–65 51 12.2
Above 65 15 3.6
Religion Christian 331 79.0
Muslim 65 15.5
Traditionalist 23 5.5
Marital status Single 165 39.4
Married 194 46.3
Divorced 22 5.3
Widowed 27 6.4
Separated 11 2.6
Level of education Primary 42 10.0
JHS 100 23.9
Secondary 107 25.5
Tertiary 131 31.3
None 39 9.3
Occupation Healthcare worker 87 20.8
Student 70 16.7
Trader 209 49.9
Businessman/woman 53 12.6

Forms of stigma on mental health clients

The study examined stigma experiences across four key dimensions involving economic, social, psychological and structural, revealing distinct patterns in prevalence and intensity. The findings demonstrate widespread stigmatization, though with notable variations across different life domains. Economic stigma emerged as particularly pervasive, with financial exclusion being the most frequently reported concern (80.2%). Workplace-related stigma manifested strongly, as 78.6% experienced employment discrimination (34.9% very often) and 76.8% reported workplace marginalization (38.1% very often). These patterns suggest systemic barriers to economic participation and professional integration. Social stigma indicators revealed alarming prevalence. Verbal abuse was the most common form (81.2%), with 44.4% experiencing it very frequently. Relational stigma was similarly widespread, with family exclusion and social isolation each affecting 77.1% of participants, and 37.2–41.1% experiencing these very often. These findings underscore the profound interpersonal consequences of stigmatization. The psychological dimension showed particularly severe impacts, with internalized shame affecting the highest proportion of participants (82.8%) and nearly half (45.8%) experiencing it very often. Negative labeling, while slightly less prevalent (71.9%), remained substantial, with 31.3% encountering it very frequently. These results highlight the deep psychological toll of stigma. Structural stigma exhibited domain-specific variations. While healthcare discrimination affected 49.6% of participants (21.0% very often), educational exclusion was markedly more prevalent (77.5%), with nearly half (47.2%) experiencing it very often. This striking disparity points to potentially different institutional mechanisms operating in these sectors (Table 2).

Table 2.

Forms of mental health-related stigma among participants (N = 419)

Stigma dimension Specific indicator Frequency (n) (%) Response distribution n (%)
Often + Very often Not at all Rarely Often Very often
Economic Employment discrimination 329 (78.6) 54 (12.9) 36 (8.6) 183 (43.7) 146 (34.9)
Financial exclusion 336 (80.2) 57 (13.6) 26 (6.2) 187 (44.6) 149 (35.6)
Workplace marginalization 322 (76.8) 51 (12.2) 46 (11.0) 162 (38.7) 160 (38.1)
Social Verbal abuse 340 (81.2) 48 (11.5) 31 (7.4) 154 (36.8) 186 (44.4)
Family exclusion 323 (77.1) 59 (14.1) 37 (8.8) 167 (39.9) 156 (37.2)
Social isolation 323 (77.1) 63 (15.0) 33 (7.9) 155 (37.0) 168 (41.1)
Psychological Internalized shame 347 (82.8) 49 (11.7) 23 (5.5) 155 (37.0) 192 (45.8)
Negative labeling 301 (71.9) 78 (18.6) 40 (9.5) 170 (40.6) 131 (31.3)
Structural Healthcare discrimination 208 (49.6) 151(36.0) 60 (14.3) 120 (28.6) 88 (21.0)
Educational exclusion 325 (77.5) 61(14.6) 33 (7.9) 127 (30.3) 198 (47.2)

Drivers of stigma

The analysis identified several key drivers perpetuating mental health stigma in the district (Table 3). Socio-cultural factors played a significant role, with 58.7% of participants endorsing dangerousness stereotypes and 42.9% believing mental illness indicated incompetence. Structural barriers were prominent, as 48.7% cited inadequate workplace protections and 65.6% reported systemic healthcare discrimination. Misinformation contributed substantially to stigma, with 41.7% fearing casual infection transmission and 30.8% attributing mental illness to personal failure. Institutional factors further compounded the problem, as 37.5% perceived mental health patients were perceived as inferior, and 34.1% of healthcare workers reported insufficient safety protocols in their facilities.

Table 3.

Drivers of mental health-related stigma (N = 419)

Stigma category Specific driver Endorsement rate (%) Key findings
Socio-cultural factors Dangerousness stereotypes 58.7% The majority associated mental illness with violent/dangerous behavior.
Belief in incompetence 42.9% Nearly half viewed mentally ill persons as incapable of normal functioning.
Structural barriers Inadequate workplace protections 48.7% Nearly half reported a lack of mental health accommodations at work.
Systemic healthcare discrimination 65.6% Two-thirds experienced denial/delay of medical services due to a mental condition.
Misinformation Fear of casual infection transmission 41.7% A significant proportion believed mental illness was contagious.
Attribution to personal failure 30.8% One-third blamed individuals for their mental health condition.
Institutional factors Perception of patient inferiority 37.5% Over one-third viewed the mentally ill as fundamentally different/inferior.
Insufficient safety protocols 34.1%* One-third of healthcare workers reported inadequate protective measures in facilities.

Note: * present (n = 87 healthcare workers).

Attitudes toward help-seeking

Assessment of help-seeking attitudes using the ATSPPHS revealed a complex pattern of responses. On the positive side, 60.6% of participants indicated they would seek professional help during a mental health crisis, while 47.5% expressed belief in the efficacy of psychotherapy. Nearly half (46.7%) reported willingness to seek treatment for prolonged mental distress. However, countervailing negative attitudes were also prevalent, with 52.5% expressing doubts about psychological counseling, 54.9% viewing professional help as a last resort and 56.3% preferring to rely on self-management of emotional problems (Table 4).

Table 4.

Attitudes of stigmatized patients toward help-seeking for mental health problems

Attitude dimension Positive response % (n) Negative response % (n) Neutral/undecided % (n)
Help-seeking during crisis 60.6% (254) 24.1% (101) 15.3% (64)
Belief in psychotherapy 47.5% (199) 26.1% (109) 26.5% (111)
Willingness for prolonged care 46.7% (196) 29.6% (124) 23.6% (99)
Perceived effectiveness of counseling 41.5% (174) 52.5% (220) 6.0% (25)
Help-seeking as a last resort 25.8% (108) 54.9% (230) 19.3% (81)
Preference for self-management 21.7% (91) 56.3% (236) 22.0% (92)

Mental health-related stigma and help-seeking behavior

Multinomial regression analysis revealed significant associations between various forms of stigma and help-seeking behaviors. The model demonstrated good fit (χ 2 = 42.36, p < 0.001), explaining 31% of the variance in help-seeking intentions (Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.31). Participants who experienced economic stigma showed significantly reduced odds of seeking professional help (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.51–0.76], p = 0.003). Specifically, employment discrimination decreased help-seeking likelihood by 38% (OR = 0.62), while financial barriers reduced service utilization by 41% (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = [0.47–0.73], p = 0.001). Social stigma components exhibited varying effects: Verbal abuse was associated with 29% lower odds of help-seeking (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.58–0.87], p = 0.008), while family exclusion showed the strongest negative association (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = [0.42–0.67], p < 0.001). Psychological stigma demonstrated particularly robust effects, with internalized shame reducing help-seeking odds by 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = [0.41–0.68], p < 0.001).

Notably, structural barriers in healthcare systems showed the most pronounced negative association (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = [0.37–0.62], p < 0.001), indicating that systemic discrimination more than halved the likelihood of service utilization. The model also identified significant interaction effects between stigma types, with the combination of economic and psychological stigma producing multiplicative negative effects on help-seeking (interaction OR = 0.41, 95% CI = [0.32–0.53], p < 0.001). These findings demonstrate that different stigma dimensions have distinct but interrelated impacts on help-seeking behavior, with structural and psychological stigma showing particularly strong deterrent effects. The results highlight the need for multifaceted interventions addressing both individual-level stigma perceptions and systemic barriers to care (Table 5).

Table 5.

Multinomial regression analysis of mental health-related stigma and help-seeking behavior (N = 419)

Stigma dimension Specific form Odds ratio (OR) 95% CI p-value % Reduction in help-seeking
Economic stigma Overall 0.62 [0.51–0.76] 0.003 38%
Employment discrimination 0.62 [0.51–0.75] 0.003 38%
Financial barriers 0.59 [0.47–0.73] 0.001 41%
Social stigma Verbal abuse 0.71 [0.58–0.87] 0.008 29%
Family exclusion 0.53 [0.42–0.67] <0.001 47%
Psychological stigma Internalized shame 0.53 [0.41–0.68] <0.001 47%
Structural stigma Healthcare system barriers 0.48 [0.37–0.62] <0.001 52%
Interaction effects Economic × Psychological 0.41 [0.32–0.53] <0.001 59%

Model fit statistics: χ 2 = 42.36, df = 7, p < 0.001, Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.31.

Discussion

This study investigated the forms, drivers and consequences of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking behavior in rural Ghana, specifically the Sekyere South District. Findings revealed a complex and multifaceted impact of mental illness-related stigma, which both aligns with and challenges existing global and national literature by introducing novel, context-specific factors from a rural Ghanaian setting. The economic dimension of stigma was especially pervasive, with over 80% of participants reporting financial exclusion and employment discrimination, a finding consistent with past studies (Evans-Lacko et al., 2013; Thornicroft et al., 2022). Moreover, as reported in the study by Liamputtong and Rice (2021), we found that a high prevalence of social stigma, such as verbal abuse and family exclusion, reflects well-documented, deeply ingrained cultural beliefs that link mental illness with shame or moral weakness. Furthermore, our data on psychological stigma strongly support the conclusions of Yu et al. (2023), which connect self-stigma to lower help-seeking intentions (Yu et al., 2023). The high level of internalized shame reported by our participants highlights a universal truth in stigma research: Negative public attitudes often become internalized, creating a significant barrier to care. This relationship is further reinforced by evidence that self-stigma mediates the relationship between public stigma and treatment avoidance (Favina et al., 2025).

The quantified impact of stigma on help-seeking also aligns with established models. Our regression analysis, which found that stigma dimensions reduced the odds of seeking care by 29–52%, supports Yu et al.’s (2023) model. This pattern is corroborated by similar findings in Sierra Leone, where individuals experiencing multiple stigma types were least likely to seek care (Betancourt et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2023). The specific influence of family exclusion as the strongest social factor (OR = 0.53) reflects a broader pattern in collectivist cultures, where familial disapproval often outweighs individual preferences, a trend also observed in studies from India (Mahomed et al., 2019). While our findings agree with broader patterns, they also reveal critical points of divergence, primarily related to the unique rural context of our study. The severity of economic stigma we observed exceeds the prevalence reported in urban Ghana (Daliri et al., 2024), suggesting that rural communities may experience compounded marginalization. These patterns of heightened rural stigma are not unique to Ghana, as similar geographic disparities have been documented in Kenya (Mutiso et al., 2017), but the degree of difference highlights a significant urban–rural divide within the country. This urban–rural contrast is also evident in the social dimension. The persistently high prevalence of verbal abuse and family exclusion in our study stands in stark contrast to urban research in Ghana (Amadu and Hoedoafia, 2024), where community education programs have slightly decreased stigma related to mental illness. This disagreement with urban-focused findings underscores that stigma is not a monolith and that interventions successful in cities may not translate directly to rural settings with stronger kinship ties and different social dynamics, a nuance supported by evidence from Tanzania (Mascayano et al., 2015).

A notable area of partial agreement and nuance lies in structural stigma. The discrepancy between high educational exclusion (77.5%) and relatively lower healthcare discrimination (49.6%) partially aligns with analyses of Ghana’s Mental Health Act (2012), which mandates healthcare access but lacks comparable protections in education (Walker and Osei, 2017). However, our data challenge any assumption of policy effectiveness; while systemic barriers in Ghana’s healthcare system appear lower than in Nigeria (Chukwuma et al., 2024), the persistence of significant reported discrimination (65.6%) indicates that, as observed in Malawi, the existence of a legal framework does not ensure implementation in rural areas where enforcement is weak (Kainja, 2023).

Finally, the drivers of stigma related to mental health conditions in our study also show both alignment and deviation. The high endorsement of mental illness being contagious (41.7%) echoes trends found in other countries like Vietnam (Thi et al., 2024). However, the higher prevalence of these beliefs compared to urban Ghana (Daliri et al., 2024) suggests a critical point of disagreement regarding the penetration of mental health literacy, pointing to a specific informational deficit in rural areas that requires tailored, community-based education campaigns.

Implications for policy and practice

The study highlights the urgent need for comprehensive interventions to combat stigma related to mental health conditions in rural Ghana. Policymakers should focus on enforcing anti-discrimination laws, especially in workplaces and educational settings, to reduce economic and structural stigma. Community-based mental health literacy initiatives are vital to dispel misconceptions and lessen socio-cultural stigma. Engaging faith-based organizations and families in anti-stigma campaigns can harness local trust networks. Healthcare systems must integrate mental health services into primary care and train providers to address and prevent discrimination. Proactive outreach efforts should target individuals feeling internalized shame to promote early help-seeking.

Limitations and future research

The study’s cross-sectional design restricts causal inferences, and self-reported data may introduce bias. Focusing on a single rural district could limit the applicability of findings to urban or other regional settings, and the combination of patients, caregivers and healthcare workers, while providing a multifaceted perspective, may obscure group-specific experiences. Future research should adopt longitudinal approaches to examine stigma dynamics over time and incorporate qualitative methods to understand nuanced cultural perspectives. Investigation into the effectiveness of targeted interventions (e.g., family-centered programs or policy enforcement mechanisms) is necessary. Broader studies across various Ghanaian regions could reveal context-specific barriers and solutions.

Conclusion

This study highlights how stigma related to mental illness functions as a complex barrier in rural Ghana, with socio-cultural, economic and structural factors intersecting to discourage help-seeking. While consistent with global patterns, the intensity of certain stigma forms calls for context-specific solutions. By addressing both individual perceptions and systemic inequalities, Ghana can make significant strides toward promoting mental health and well-being for all its citizens in line with Sustainable Development Goal 3.4, which aims at promoting mental health and well-being. The inclusion of new evidence from similar settings enhances the discussion, offering a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of stigma’s effect on help-seeking behavior.

Supporting information

Afriyie et al. supplementary material

Afriyie et al. supplementary material

DOI: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.sm001

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants at the selected district facilities who took part in this research, without whom this work would not have been possible. We also appreciate the Faculty of Health and Allied Sciences at the Catholic University College of Ghana for the academic support provided to the first author in pursuing his degree program.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.

Data availability statement

The dataset for this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

EKNB, EKA and EK conceptualized the study. EKA, SEA and EK developed the data collection instrument. SEA and EK supervised data collection. EKNB and PWA conducted the interviews. SEA and EK guided the entire data analysis and interpretation of the results. The manuscript was drafted by EKNB, EKA, GO and JAA, and critically revised by EKA, SEA and EK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Ethics statement

Before data collection, our project was reviewed and approved by the Ghana Health Service Ethics Review Committee (GHS-ERC 040/06/21). All participants were informed of the objective, justification and purpose of the study, and signed an informed consent form.

References

  1. Ae-Ngibise KA, Adiibokah E, Nettey OEA, Nyame S, Doku VCK, Asante KP and Owusu-Agyei S (2017) Making the mentally ill count”, lessons from a health and demographic surveillance system for people with mental and neurological disorders in the Kintampo districts of Ghana. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 11(1), 22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amadu PM and Hoedoafia RE (2024) Mental health issues and challenges in northern region of Ghana: Practitioners’ perspectives. Journal of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Disorders 8(1), 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  3. Betancourt TS, Keegan K, Farrar J and Brennan RT (2020) The intergenerational impact of war on mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: Lessons from the longitudinal study of war-affected youth in Sierra Leone. Conflict and Health 14(1), 62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chukwuma OV, Ezeani EI, Fatoye EO, Benjamin J, Okobi OE, Nwume CG, Egberuare EN and CG NWUME (2024) A systematic review of the effect of stigmatization on psychiatric illness outcomes. Cureus 16(6), e62642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Daliri DB, Aninanya GA, Laari TT, Abagye N, Dei-Asamoa R and Afaya A (2024) Exploring the barriers to mental health service utilization in the Bolgatanga municipality: The perspectives of family caregivers, service providers, and mental health administrators. BMC Health Services Research 24(1), 278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans-Lacko S, Knapp M, McCrone P, Thornicroft G and Mojtabai R (2013) The mental health consequences of the recession: Economic hardship and employment of people with mental health problems in 27 European countries. PLoS One 8(7), e69792. 10.1371/journal.pone.0069792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Favina A, Hobe N, Muwanguzi M, Munaru G, Rubega A, Lutasingwa D, Kirabira J, Rukundo GZ and Ashaba S (2025) Affiliate stigma and associated factors among informal caregivers of people with mental illness in southwestern Uganda: A multi-center cross-sectional study. PLOS Mental Health 2(4), e0000132. [Google Scholar]
  8. Girma E, Ayele B, Gronholm PC, Wahid SS, Hailemariam A, Thornicroft G, Hanlon C and Kohrt B (2024) Understanding mental health stigma and discrimination in Ethiopia: A qualitative study. Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health 11, e58. 10.1017/gmh.2024.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Harden B, Gyimah L, Funk M, Drew-Bold N, Orrell M, Moro MF, Cole C, Ohene S-A, Baingana F, Amissah C, Ansong J, Tawiah PE, Brobbey K, Carta MG and Osei A (2023) Attitudes towards persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities as rights holders in Ghana: A World Health Organization study. BMC Psychiatry 23(1), 142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kainja J (2023) Legal and policy gaps affecting digital rights in Malawi. Journal of Humanities 31(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kesmodel US (2018) Cross-sectional studies–what are they good for? Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 97(4), 388–393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Liamputtong P and Rice ZS (2021) Stigma, discrimination, and social exclusion. In Handbook of Social Inclusion: Research and Practices in Health and Social Sciences. Berlin: Springer, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mahomed F, Stein MA, Chauhan A and Pathare S (2019) ‘They love me, but they don’t understand me’: Family support and stigmatisation of mental health service users in Gujarat, India. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 65(1), 73–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mascayano F, Armijo JE and Yang LH (2015) Addressing stigma relating to mental illness in low-and middle-income countries. Frontiers in Psychiatry 6, 38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Metrics IfH and Evaluation (2024) Global Burden of Disease 2021: findings from the GBD 2021 Study. Seattle, Washington, USA: Institute for health metrics and evaluation. [Google Scholar]
  16. Moitra M, Owens S, Hailemariam M, Wilson KS, Mensa-Kwao A, Gonese G, Kamamia CK, White B, Young DM and Collins PY (2023) Global mental health: Where we are and where we are going. Current Psychiatry Reports 25(7), 301–311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mutiso VN, Musyimi CW, Nayak SS, Musau AM, Rebello T, Nandoya E, Tele AK, Pike K and Ndetei DM (2017) Stigma-related mental health knowledge and attitudes among primary health workers and community health volunteers in rural Kenya. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 63(6), 508–517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Olsen C and St George DM (2004) Cross-sectional study design and data analysis. College entrance examination board 26(03), 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. Prizeman K, Weinstein N and McCabe C (2023) Effects of mental health stigma on loneliness, social isolation, and relationships in young people with depression symptoms. BMC Psychiatry 23(1), 527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sickel AE, Seacat JD and Nabors NA (2014) Mental health stigma update: A review of consequences. Advances in Mental Health 12(3), 202–215. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ssebunnya J, Medhin G, Kangere S, Kigozi F, Nakku J and Lund C (2019) Prevalence, correlates and help-seeking behaviour for depressive symptoms in rural Uganda: A population-based survey. Global Mental Health 6, e27. 10.1017/gmh.2019.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Stangl AL, Earnshaw VA, Logie CH, Van Brakel W, Simbayi CL, Barré I and Dovidio JF (2019) The health stigma and discrimination framework: A global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas. BMC Medicine 17(1), 31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Surgenor LJ (1985) Attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 14(1), 27–33. [Google Scholar]
  24. Thi LM, Manzano A, Ha BTT, Vui LT, Quynh-Chi NT, Duong DTT, Lakin K, Kane S, Mirzoev T and Trang DTH (2024) Mental health stigma and health-seeking behaviors amongst pregnant women in Vietnam: A mixed-method realist study. International Journal for Equity in Health 23(1), 163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Thornicroft G, Sunkel C, Aliev AA, Baker S, Brohan E, El Chammay R, Davies K, Demissie M, Duncan J and Fekadu W (2022) The lancet commission on ending stigma and discrimination in mental health. The Lancet 400(10361), 1438–1480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Walker GH and Osei A (2017) Mental health law in Ghana. BJPsych Int 14(2), 38–39. 10.1192/s2056474000001768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. World Health Organization. (2022) Mental Health. Available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response (accessed 15/08/2025 2025).
  28. Yamane T (1973) Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, Manhattan, New York, United States: Harper & Row. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yu BC, Chio FH, Chan KK, Mak WW, Zhang G, Vogel D and Lai MH (2023) Associations between public and self-stigma of help-seeking with help-seeking attitudes and intention: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology 70(1), 90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.pr2

Review: Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region — R0/PR2

Obed Adonteng-Kissi 1

Effect of Mental Health Stigma on Help-Seeking Behaviour: A Community-Based Study in Sekyere South District, Ashanti Region, Ghana

This paper provides a very interesting investigation into the forms, drivers, and consequences of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking behaviour in the rural areas of Sekyere South District of Ghana. It puts forward an interesting discourse on the complex, multi-layered barrier, driven by socio-cultural beliefs and structural failures, necessitates urgent, multifaceted interventions targeting public education, policy, and self-stigma to improve mental health equity in rural Ghana. The paper finds that stigma considerably lowers help-seeking, with financial exclusion and internalized shame being the strongest restraints. This is an interesting paper, and it has the potential to make a strong contribution to the relevant bodies of literature. However, in its present form, it is underdeveloped, unsatisfactorily structured and not very well presented or written. The challenges for this paper are the following:

Title: I note that the title of your paper reads: Are Borders Only Physical? Intercultural Communication, Perceptions and Immigrant Experiences. It is better read as: Effects of Stigma on Help-Seeking Behaviour in Mental Health: A Community-Based Study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti Region.

Abstract:

It would be useful if your abstract also contains the following.

□ In your opening statement in your abstract, in identifying the gap(s), it would be useful to put forward a meaningful statement. For example, stigma in mental health help-seeking acts as a critical barrier to care by fostering shame, fear of judgment, and discrimination, which deters individuals from seeking help, delaying treatment, and worsening outcomes, yet the area remains under-researched in low-resource context such as Ghana.

□ The aim of your study better reads as: ‘This study aimed to investigate the forms, drivers, and consequences of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking behaviour in the rural areas of Sekyere South District of Ghana’.

□ The type of literature that the paper drew on.

□ The average age of participants.

□ The method of data analysis, e.g. framework approach; thematic analysis.

Introduction

□ It would be useful if you can explain the opening statement a bit more. For example, mental health stigma creates a significant global barrier to accessing care, leading to delays in treatment, worsened symptoms, social exclusion, and poor health outcomes. This stigma stems from misunderstanding and prejudice, causing people to fear being labelled, ostracized, or judged, which diminishes self-esteem and hinders their willingness to seek help.

□ In your introduction, on lines 15-16, you need to explain the statement further to help your readers understand what you want to articulate. Do not assume, your readers understand issues around your topic. For example, you could explain that recent studies show stigma operates on public (others’ attitudes), self (internalized shame), and structural (discriminatory policies) levels, creating significant barriers to care by deterring people from seeking help for mental health conditions. This multi-level stigma can lead to social exclusion, shame, and inadequate access to services, negatively impacting treatment-seeking behaviours and health outcomes.

□ The gaps in literature would benefit from a clarification of the issue. The problematisation of your paper is needed much earlier in the section. The section is there to set up your paper, and let the reader know what the problem is, what we know about it, what we do not know about it (and thus, what your paper contributes to our knowledge). When doing this, be careful that the problematisation of the issue you are investigating is clear. In the current paper, the discussion around the investigation into the forms, drivers, and consequences of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking behaviour in the rural areas of Sekyere South District of Ghana is unfocussed.

□ For example, existing literature suggest that structural stigma and workplace discrimination are underexplored in low-resource context such as Ghana highlighting significant gaps in understanding these dynamics, particularly concerning marginalised groups such as persons living with mental health illnesses. In Ghana, research demonstrates the presence and severe impact of stigma across various sectors, including healthcare and employment, and underscores the need for context-specific, inclusive research to address these interconnected issues and dismantle exclusionary structures (You must support these with the relevant references).

Language/writing:

The writing needs improvement in places throughout the paper. I will suggest you write short sentences to improve meaning and clarity. Some of your sentences should be split into two.

□ In a formal journal article such as this, it would be useful to use formal phrases. For example, use ‘such as’ rather than ‘like’. Further, once you use the verb ‘like’ throughout your work, reviewers may think you wrote your work with AI.

Methods

□ You need to introduce ‘methods’ before moving on to ‘study design and setting.’ For example, methods examine study design and setting ………………………

□ You should clearly present the methods and research design of the study, detailing what was done, how it was done, and why it was done and describes the study context.

□ How do you address the issue of validity and reliability? How was your data triangulated?

□ What exactly did you do in relation to your research design, which involved quantitative methods.

□ You need to describe or give a profile of the participants and why each of them was chosen for the study.

□ What were the questions asked in your survey (structured questionnaires)? You can put this in the appendix, but you need to at least give an overview of your survey in the research methods?

Discussions

□ In the discussion compare the findings with what literature says- what are the points of agreement? and disagreement?

References

□ Cross-check your references for consistency.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.pr3

Review: Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region — R0/PR3

Anonymous

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and important paper. It focuses on an under-researched topic and provides evidence from a low-resource setting on how multiple aspects of stigma play out.

Title: The title of the paper focuses on the relationship between stigma and help-seeking. While this is a component of the analysis, the results are more far reaching than this. In the purpose statement, for example, the authors indicate that they assess how stigma operates across social, economic, and healthcare systems. Perhaps the title could be broadened to reflect this.

Sample: The sample was purposive and included patients, caregivers of patients, and healthcare workers. I’m unclear as to why they were combined, given that they could experience stigma differently. For example, is internalized shame relevant for healthcare providers? I would expect healthcare providers to have different views about the efficacy of treatments. Were any stratified analyses conducted to check? Perhaps the authors could elaborate on the rationale for combining potentially disparate groups and identify this as a study limitation. Also, given that the sample was purposive, another limitation would be that it may not be representative of the underlying population. The high prevalences of stigma reported by participants may be due to sampling bias—a focus on those most likely to be at risk of being stigmatized.

Ethics: The subjects were told that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time, but I wonder if they would have been able to withdraw their data once collected and anonymized. Perhaps a minor clarification would be helpful.

Results: Regarding the occupational categories almost half were “traders”. I am unclear as to what this is. Perhaps the authors could elaborate.

Conclusion: The conclusion references SDG 3.4. It is the first time it is referenced in the paper. Will readers know what this is?

Small Technical Issues:

Although often phrased as “mental health stigma” in fact, mental health is not stigmatized—mental illness or mental distress is. Perhaps, given the focus on patients, it could be rephrased to “mental illness related stigma”.

On page 11, line 30/31, the authors use the term “prevalence rates”. Technically, prevalences are proportions, not rates. I would suggest that the term “rate” not be used in this paper, given the cross-sectional nature of the data.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.pr4

Recommendation: Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region — R0/PR4

Editor: Pallab Maulik1

Please refer to the pints made by the reviewers and resubmit

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.pr5

Decision: Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region — R0/PR5

Editor: Dixon Chibanda1

No accompanying comment.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.pr7

Recommendation: Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region — R1/PR7

Editor: Pallab Maulik1

No accompanying comment.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.pr8

Decision: Effects of stigma on help-seeking behavior in mental health: A community-based study in Ghana’s Sekyere South District in the Ashanti region — R1/PR8

Editor: Dixon Chibanda1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Afriyie et al. supplementary material

    Afriyie et al. supplementary material

    DOI: 10.1017/gmh.2025.10118.sm001

    Data Availability Statement

    The dataset for this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


    Articles from Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES