Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 24;21(6):e0350860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350860

Mental illness stigma and its impact on help-seeking behavior among residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study

Yousif M Elmosaad 1,*, Ziyad Alabdulqader 1, Mohammed Alhaddad 1, Mohammad Aatif 1, Ghazi I Al Jowf 1,*
Editor: Mohamed Ahmed Said2
PMCID: PMC13293441  PMID: 42340996

Abstract

Background

Mental illnesses are documented as a public health concern; they are a leading cause of disability and poor quality of life among individuals. Most people with mental illness do not receive treatment due to many factors, including stigma, which significantly impacts the individual’s readiness to seek help.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study design conducted among individuals 18 years of age or older who lived in Al Ahsa. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire. A total of 1085 individuals participated. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test and binary logistic regression analysis were used to investigate the association and the predictors of help-seeking behavior.

Results

Overall, the prevalence of mental illness-related stigma was 23.1%. There was a significant association between gender and some factors associated with mental illness stigma (p < 0.05). The proportion of individuals who might not seek help with mental illnesses due to stigma was 61.0%. Multivariate analysis indicates that the individuals who had mental illness-related stigma were more likely to avoid seeking help compared to the individuals who did not have stigma (B = 0.53, OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.25–2.34). The young adult group aged 30–41 years was found to be more likely to seek help (B = 0.47, OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.01–3.20) than the other age groups. However, gender, education, employment status, and marital status were not associated with help-seeking behavior (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The study indicates that the occurrences of stigma associated with mental illness was 23.1%. Approximately two-thirds of the participants in the study avoided seeking assistance for mental issues. Our multivariate analysis confirmed that the stigma related to mental illness is significantly linked to help-seeking behavior.Specifically, it was found that young adults are more likely to seek help compared to other age groups. Participants living in rural areas were less likely to seek help. These findings have significant implications for the formulation of interventions aimed at addressing mental illness stigma and promoting help-seeking behaviors.

Introduction

Mental health influences the ability of individuals to make decisions, build relationships, and shape their environment [1–3]. It is an intrinsic component of overall health, intricately intertwined with physical health and behavior, and determined by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors [4]. Several studies suggest that social and environmental factors increase the risk of mental illnesses among certain population groups [5–7].

Existing literature has shown that mental illness is associated with stigma which refers to negative attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes held by the public towards individuals with mental illness, leading to societal prejudice and discrimination against them [8,9]. Psychological frameworks describe stigma as encompassing stereotypes, labeling, isolation, status loss, prejudice, and discrimination [10]. Stigma can appear in various forms including public stigma and self- stigma, structural stigma and perceived stigma all of which influences the behaviors and willingness of individuals and families affected by mental illness to seek help [9]. Corrigan et al., reported that common stereotypes associated with individual with serious mental illness includes dangerousness, blame, and social incompetence [11]. Moreover, some previous studies have sought to conceptualize stereotypes that contribute self-stigma, which significantly influence help seeking behaviors, for example Ritsher et al [12] and others developed a five factor scale to assess self-stigma which includes alienation, stereotype endorsement, discrimination experience, social withdrawal and stigma resistance. This model was guided by different scale [13–15] used to examine whether individuals with mental illness are recognize the stereotypes related to mental illness. This conceptualization of stigma as progressive experience is critical in understanding how stigma can influence help seeking behavior the process begin with individuals’ awareness about societal stereotypes surrounding metal illness followed by agreement, where internalization these stereotypes as a facts it will lead to the application of these negative believe to oneself, resulting in server consequences such as reduce self-esteem and hesitant to seek help [14].

Recently, common mental illnesses have become highly prevalent in the population, affecting 25% of individuals across all regions around the world [16]. causing disability and accounts for 23% of all non-fatal burden [17]. Nevertheless, regional disparities arise due to differences in affluence and socioeconomic status. Global statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that approximately one billion people are affected by mental illness. Notably, the prevalence of mental health conditions is significantly elevated in conflict-affected populations, reaching 22.1% [18]. In 2022, the USA data showed that about 23.1% of the adult population was living with a mental illness [19], while in Europe, it was found that 15.5% of young people experience a mental disorder [20]. The prevalence of mental disorders in the Gulf countries ranges from 15.6% to 35.5% [21]. In the UAE, according to Ghader et al., it accounts for 19.9% of disease burden [22], Qatar 28% [23] and in KSA, specifically in Riyadh city, the prevalence was 28.5% among primary healthcare patients [24]. According to a recent study published in 2025, among the KSA population, it was reported that the lifetime prevalence of mental disorders is 34.2% [16].

Regarding health outcomes, mental illness, if left untreated, is significantly linked to negative results such as declining productivity, poor educational achievement, increased absenteeism, and higher turnover rates [25]. Similarly, untreated mental illness can lead to disability, substance abuse, homelessness, suicide, difficulties in maintaining friendships, and a reduced quality of life [20,26]. Moreover, failing to provide effective treatment for mental illness imposes a considerable economic burden on individuals and families and adversely affects society as a whole [27,28]. However, with appropriate and effective treatment, mental illness can be managed to substantially reduce 70 ~ 90% of these consequences [29].

Although mental illness is highly prevalent and effective treatments are well-established by a substantial body of evidence, more than 70% of individuals worldwide requiring mental health services do not have access to them [30,31]. In the Gulf region during the past 30 years, there has been an improvement in the availability of mental health services in hospitals delivered by healthcare professionals. For instance, in Bahrain, mental health services are provided free of charge by the Ministry of Health [32], and in Qatar, mental health services are being redefined and expanded. While in Kuwait and Oman, a review of mental health services found that it was still in a developmental stage [33].

In the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the government has initiated Vision 2030, which includes the Health Sector Transformation Program. This program is designed to enhance the quality of life, ensure equitable access to healthcare services throughout the nation, and offer healthcare services at no cost (Vision 2030).  As part of this strategic initiative, substantial investments have been directed toward the development of mental health infrastructure. Currently, the country operates over 21 dedicated mental health hospitals, providing a total clinical capacity of 4,046 beds. In addition to 99 psychiatric clinics, and 14 specialized hospitals under construction [34].

Despite the availability of healthcare facilities dealing with mental illness, more than half of the psychiatric patients do not receive the required treatment or adequate social support [35]. Also, they may not receive suitable social support [36]. Thus, it is important to identify and address the factors preventing individuals from seeking mental health care and treatment. Previous research conducted in a different part of the globe suggests that many barriers prevent people from seeking mental health consultation. One of the main barriers is societal stigma, which comes from numerous sources, such as personal, social, and family beliefs and is frequently associated with reluctance or refusal to seek professional help [4,37].

In the Gulf countries, traditional cultural values, religious beliefs, and fear of social repercussions further exacerbate this issue and hinder seeking professional help [38,39]. Mental illness stigma exists at two broad levels: the community and personal levels. It’s a negative belief about mental illness that the community and/or an individual holds [40]. According to the MH Foundation, nearly 9 out of 10 people with a mental illness feel that stigma and discrimination negatively impact their lives [41].

Previous studies suggest that levels of stigma are the main stumbling block preventing patients from seeking mental health consultation and creating a gap between community, service, and treatment [38] and lead to different negative outcomes such as distress, low self-esteem, self-efficacy, treatment delay, treatment drop-out, exacerbating maladaptive behaviors, and reduced help-seeking behaviors [42]. Furthermore, other previous research reported that stigma has a major impact on help-seeking behaviors. Additionally, recent reviews of the influence of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking have reported that stigma is highly associated with decreased treatment adherence and seeking help [43,44]. Chandrasekara (2016) reported that there is evidence that prevailing societal norms surrounding mental illness would make them less likely to seek help [45].

The previous discussion illustrates the impact of social mental health-related stigma on help-seeking behavior and explains the importance of addressing stigma around mental illness to improve mental well-being. After reviewing the current situation of KSA regarding mental illness stigma and help-seeking behavior, the data showed that 22.3% of the Saudi population had at least one mental disorder, and only 13.9% of them obtained treatment [46]. 50% of those not seeking treatment hide their mental illness [47]. Moreover, another study reported that 36.5% of the general population could speak to any person with a mental illness [48]. Based on the previous studies conducted in the Saudi context have reported the prevalence of mental illness and highlighted that only a small proportion of affected individuals receive treatment despite the availability of mental health services. However, these studies have not clearly identified the underlying reasons for low treatment uptake or the lack of social acceptance toward people with mental illness. This study contributes existing literature by examining the relationship between stigma and help-seeking behavior, offering a deeper understanding of the determinants of stigma and help seeking.

Nevertheless, this demonstrates that there is a need for conducting a community based survey in the Eastern Region, to estimate the prevalence of mental illness stigma and exploring the association of the stigma with help-seeking behavior in the general population. Additionally, the survey aims to estimate the proportion of individuals who might not seek help with mental illnesses for fear of perceived social stigma. Furthermore, the study hypothesized that individuals who have a stigma associated with mental illness are less likely to seek help for their own mental illness. Finally, we provide some recommendations to policymakers to develop effective stigma reduction strategies.

Methods

Study design and setting

A cross-sectional study design conducted in Al Ahsa province, located in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia, Data were collected during the period from October 27th to November 3rd, 2024 and data analysis was conducted in May 2025. The total area is 410,713 km2, which includes three administrative areas: Al-Hofuf, Al-Mubaraz, and Al-Qura [49].

Study population

The total population of the province is 1,300,000, of which 1,095,344 are aged 18 years or older, among them 42.0% of them living in Al-Hofuf, 38.0% Al Mubarraz and 20% from Al-Qura (Al Rajeh et al 2022) [50], with a total population growth of 2.0% according to the Central Authority for Statistics. The entire population of Al Ahsa, 18 years or older, who lived in Al Ahsa province, of all genders, was considered eligible to participate in the study.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were participants aged 18 years or older who lived in Al Ahsa during the reference period, with the ability to competently comprehend written Arabic and/or English texts. The exclusion criteria were participants who were unwilling to participate in the study or who lived outside Al Ahsa province.

Sample techniques

A multi-stage sampling method was used to draw a representative sample of adults 18 years or older who resided in the Al Ahsa administrative areas of Al-Hofuf, Al-Mubaraz, and Al-Qura. The required study sample size was 767, calculated using Epi Info software with an absolute precision of 5% and at a 95% confidence interval and 2x design effect. To draw a representative sample, the total sample (767) was proportionally allocated according to the total population of the three administrative areas: Al-Hofuf accounts for 322 (42%) participants of the total sample, followed by Al-Mubaraz with (291) 38%, and Al-Qura with 153 (20%). After distributing the study sample by administrative areas, the total number of residential areas was identified: Al-Hofuf had 12 residential areas, Al-Mubaraz had 4 residential areas, and there were 14 villages. Out of these, 50% were randomly selected and proportionately distributed, 6 from Al-Hofuf, 2 from Al-Mubaraz, and 7 from Al-Qura.

To determine the number of study participants for each selected residential area, proportional allocation based on the population size of each area was used. Participants within each residential area, were then selected from the residents’ lists using a fixed interval value. The interval value is calculated by dividing the required sample size for that residential area by its total population.After participants were selected, they were contacted through the available means of communication such as: social media platforms (WhatsApp, Telegram, Snapchat), and mobile phones to schedule an interview for completing the questionnaire. The data collection was collected by six public Health students who were specially trained to collect responses from participant. A total of 1085 responses were collected, exceeding the minimum required sample size of 767.Among the eligible individuals who were contacted, six declined to participate, resulting in a non-response rate of 0.6%. This higher number was due to the higher-than-expected participation in Al hofuf and Al Qura. All responses were verified for completeness and validity and were included in the final analysis. Study participants’ detailed information is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 1085).

Variables Responses Count Percentage
Age in years • 18 – 29 years 320 29.5%
• 30 – 41 years 170 15.7%
• 42 – 53 years 256 23.6%
• 54 – 65 years 290 26.7%
• Older than 65 years 49 4.5%
Gender • Male 511 47.1%
• Female 574 52.9%
Location of Residence in Al Ahsa • Al-Hofuf 682 62.9%
• Al-Mubarraz 221 20.4%
• Al-Qura 182 16.8%
Education Level • No formal education 4 0.4%
• High school or lower 230 21.2%
• College level or equivalent 750 69.1%
• Master or higher 101 9.3%
Employment Status  • Student 226 20.8%
• Employed 392 36.1%
• Unemployed 146 13.5%
• Retired 321 29.6%
Marital Status • Single 305 28.1%
• Married 733 67.6%
• Divorced 23 2.1%
• Widowed 24 2.2%
Experience dealing with an individual with mental illness • Yes 412 38.0%
• No 673 62.0%

Data collection

Before starting data collection, the study protocol was approved by the college’s research committee and the KFU Deanship of Scientific Research Ethics Committee, bearing the approval number (KFU-REC-2024-OCT-ETHICS2653). The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.The survey was conducted during the period from October 27th to November 3rd, 2024. Data was collected using an anonymous, structured questionnaire designed in both English and Arabic designed by researchers; it will take 5–10 minutes to complete. The study participants were interviewed after providing formal consent to participate in the study. They were also informed about the study objectives, and the confidentiality and privacy of the data gathered were maintained. We ensured data accuracy, integrity, missing responses and facilitated the data entry process. The questionnaire was designed using Google Forms. Data collectors share the link with participants at the beginning of the interview all responses were recorded under their guidance.

Instrument and measurement

The questionnaire was developed based on the key concepts derived from “ Link’s Devaluation–Discrimination Scale” [13], and” Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale” [51], specifically related to the variables concerning to stigma and help-seeking in addressing psychological challenges. Some items rephrased to align with the linguistic and educational level of the study population, as well as to minimize response time. The content validity was ensured through a combination of rigorous literature review, consultation with public health specialist and focus group discussions. Based on their feedback, certain items were modified or removed to improve clarity and relevance based on their feedback. Moreover, a factor analysis was conducted, of the five item stigma scale (N = 1085) using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. The KMO measure was 0.491 and Bartlett’s test was significant (p < 0.001) supporting factorability. Communalities ranged from 0.27 to 0.64, indicating adequate item contribution. Additionally, to assess the reliability of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted on a random sample from the study population. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. The results reveal the questionnaire demonstrate high validity, with a Cronbach’s alpha equal (0. 83).

The data collection tool consisted of four parts. Part one included variables related to the participant’s socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, residence location, education level, employment status, marital status, and experiences. Furthermore, there were inquiries regarding participants’ interactions with individuals suffering from mental illness. Part two of the questionnaire comprised five questions used to assess the prevalence of mental illness-related stigma. Part three consisted of one question with multiple responses, used to identify factors associated with mental illness stigma. The final part included four questions to determine the proportion of individuals who might not seek help for mental illnesses due to stigma.

We assessed the prevalence of mental illness-related stigma through 5 questions. Each question had different response options. The first question relates to avoiding interaction with someone you know who is suspected of or suffering from a mental illness. For this question, a response of “frequently” was given 2 points; “occasionally” was given one point, and “never” was given zero points. The second question assesses the willingness to interact with someone with a mental illness. For this question, a response of “Not receptive” was given 2 points, “Neutral” was given one point, and “Receptive” was given zero points. The third question measures agreement with the statement that “mental illnesses are caused by weak personality”. For this question, a response of “Agree” was given 2 points, “Neutral” was given one point, and “Disagree” was given zero points. The fourth question pertains to their experiences or observations of an individual within their community being subjected to mistreatment (such as bullying, insults, or physical violence) due to their mental illness. For this question, a response of “Frequently” was given 2 points, “Occasionally” was given one point and “Never’ was given zero points. The final question assesses the impact of the respondent’s perception of mental illness on their willingness to support mentally ill individuals in their home. For this question, a response of “Increases support” was given zero points, “No effect” was given one point and “Decreases support” was given 2 points. An overall score of mental illness-related stigma was calculated by adding up the score for each of the 5 questions, and the maximum total score was 10, with a range from 0 to 10 points. The overall mental illness-related stigma was dichotomized into two categories (do not have stigma and have stigma) based on their cumulative grade. A score below the mean (< 5) indicates no mental illness related stigma, whereas a score equal to or above the mean (≥ 5) indicates the presence of mental illness related stigma [49]. We identify the factors linked to mental illness stigma by one question with multiple responses (10 responses), and the participants choose the factors they consider related to mental illness stigma.

We determined the proportion of individuals who might not seek help with mental illnesses due to the stigma through two (Yes/ No) questions. For these questions, a response of (No) was given one point, and a response of (Yes) was given zero points. However, for Likert scale questions, a response of high possibility was given 2 points, a low possibility was given one point, and improbable was given zero points. The maximum total score was 6, with a range from 0 to 6 points. A cutoff point was identified based on the total range of values, where a score of less than 3 indicates seeking help and a score of 3 or higher indicates being deterred from seeking help.

Statistical analysis

Before the statistical analysis, the dataset was migrated to MS Excel to be thoroughly cleaned for inconsistencies. Then it was coded according to the operational definitions and the categories as mentioned in the Instrument and Measurement part. Cleaned data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) version 25.Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequencies and percentages of the socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, location of residence, education level, employment status, marital status and experiences, while continuous variables were presented in the form of mean and standard deviation (SD). A multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine the effect of independent variables on the association between mental illness-related stigma and help-seeking behaviors. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR/AOR) were presented with a 95% CI. A p-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The raw datasheet is provided as supporting (S1 Data: sav file and S2 Data: excel sheet).

The Results

The socio-demographic characteristics of study participants are presented in Table 1. All study participants were 18 years or above (1085); of them, 511 (47.1%) were female and 574 (52.9%) were male. More than half of the participants were older than 42 years, 595 (54.8%). Based on the location, the majority of study participants were from Al-Hofuf 682 (62.9%), followed by Al-Mubarraz 221 (20.4%) and Al-Qura 182 (16.8%). About 750 (69.1%) of the participants had a college education level or equivalent. The majority of participants were married, 733 (67.6%), and more than one third of the study participants were employed, 391 (36.0%), followed by retired participants, 321 (29.6%), and students represented 266 (20.8%) of the study participants. Over one-third of the participants, 673 (62.0%), do not have experience dealing with someone suspected or suffering from a mental illness.

The prevalence of mental illness-related stigma is presented in Table 2. The results illustrate that 166 (15.3%) of the participants frequently avoided interactions with someone known or suspected to be suffering from mental illness, and 139 (12.8%) of them did not openly interact with mentally ill individuals. Likewise, 182(16.8%) of the participants agreed that mental illnesses are caused by weak personalities, and 232 (21.4%) of the participants frequently witnessed someone treated harshly due to mental illness. Only 48 participants, representing 4.4%, believed that mental illness affects their willingness to assist individuals with mental health issues. The overall prevalence of stigma related to mental illness is 251, accounting for 23.1%, with 12.9% among males and 10.2% among females. According to the chi-square test, there exists a significant correlation between gender and the prevalence of stigma associated with mental illness (p < 0.05).

Table 2. Prevalence of mental illness-related stigma (n = 1085).

Variables Responses Frequency Percentage 95% CI
Avoidance of interaction with a known or suspected mental illness case. Never 387 35.7% 32.8–38.6
Occasionally 532 49.0% 46.0–52.0
Frequently 166 15.3% 13.2–17.4
Open to interactions with mentally ill individuals. Receptive 474 43.7% 40.7–46.7
Neutral 472 43.5% 40.6–46.4
Not receptive 139 12.8% 10.8–14.8
Agreement with the following statement: “Mental illnesses are caused by weak personalities”. Disagree 640 59.0% 56.1–61.9
Neutral 263 24.2% 21.7–26.7
Agree 182 16.8% 14.6–19.0
Witnessed someone being treated harshly due to mental illness. Never 416 38.3% 35.4–41.2
Occasionally 437 40.3% 37.4–43.2
Frequently 232 21.4% 19.0–23.8
The influence of mental illness perception on support for mentally ill individuals. Increased support 826 76.1% 73.6–78.6
No effect 211 19.4% 17.0–21.8
Decrease support 48 4.4% 3.2–5.6
Overall prevalence of stigma No stigma 834 76.9% 74.4–79.4
Has stigma 251 23.1% 20.6–25.6
251(23.1%) overall prevalence of mental illness-related stigma, (12.9%) among males and (10.2%) among females*.

*p-value significant at level ≤0.05

To determine the association between mental illness stigma-associated factors and variations based on participants’ gender, the chi-square test was used. As shown in Table 3, there was a significant association between gender and some factors associated with mental illness stigma (p < 0.05). Male participants specifically recognized friends, peer influence and school or university environment as factors associated with mental illness stigma (55.1%, 52.3% and 52.2% respectively). However, female participants specifically recognized family beliefs as a factor associated with mental illness stigma (55.1%).While other factors, such as workplace policies, health awareness campaigns, social media platforms, quality of mental care, and personal mental health experiences, are not associated with the participants’ gender (p > 0.05). However, these factors are not associated with any gender. All genders report the following factors associated with mental illness stigma: quality of mental care at 473 (43.6%), social media platforms at 465 (42.9%), school or university environments at 383 (35.3%), health awareness campaigns at 373 (34.4%), personal mental health experiences at 282 (26.0%), and workplace policies at 250 (23.0%).

Table 3. Factors associated with mental illness stigma variations based on participants’ gender (n = 1085).

Factors linked to mental illness stigma No. / % Male Female x2 p-value *
No. % No. %
Family beliefs 660 (60.8%) 299 45.3 361 54.7 4.17 0.050
Friends and peer influence 526 (48.5%) 290 55.1 236 44.9 26.46 0.001
Culture and religion 398(36.7%) 208 52.3 190 47.7 6.73 0.006
Workplace policies 250 (23.0%) 126 50.4 124 49.6 1.42 0.131
School or university environment 383(35.3%) 200 52.2 183 47.8 6.23 0.007
Quality of mental health care 473(43.6%) 224 47.4 249 52.6 0.23 0.464
Health awareness campaigns and initiatives 373(34.4%) 185 49.6 188 50.4 1.43 0.129
Social media platforms 465(42.9%) 227 48.8 238 51.2 0.97 0.178
Personal mental health experiences 282 (26.0%) 135 47.9 147 52.1 0.92 0.407

*p-value significant at level ≤0.05

The results presented in Table 4 show that 771(71.1%) of the participants perceive that there is a negative stigma surrounding mental illnesses in their communities that prevents them from seeking help. Furthermore, more than one quarter of the participants 277 (, 25.5%) of the participants avoided seeking help for a mental illness due to fear of being judged or stigmatized, and 230 (21.2%) of the participants indicated a high probability of avoiding professional help due to fear of stigma. Additionally, 367 (33.8%) of the participants indicated a high likelihood of avoiding discussing mental health issues with relatives and friends due to fear of stigma. Overall, 662 (61.0%) of the study participants were deterred from seeking help for mental illnesses due to stigma, 320(48.3%) of them being male and 342(51.7%) of them being female. According to the chi-square test, a significant relationship exists between gender and reluctance to seek assistance for mental illnesses due to stigma (p < 0.05).

Table 4. Proportion of individuals who might not seek help with mental illnesses due to stigma.

Variables Response Frequency Percentage 95% CI
They believe that, there is a negative stigma in their community that prevents them from seeking help for mental illnesses. No 314 28.9 26.2 – 31.6
Yes 771 71.1 68.3–73.7
Avoidance of seeking help for a mental illness due to fear of being judged or stigmatized. No 808 74.5 71.1–77.1
Yes 277 25.5 22.9–28.1
Avoidance of seeking professional help due to fear of stigma. Improbable 338 31.2 28.4–34.0
Low probability 517 47.6 44.6–50.6
High probability 230 21.2 18.8–23.6
Avoidance of discussing mental health issues with relatives and friends due to fear of stigma Improbable 212 19.5 17.1–21.9
Low probability 506 46.6 43.6–49.6
High probability 367 33.8 31.0–36.6
Overall proportion of seeking help with mental illnesses Seeking help 423 39.0 36.1–41.9
Deters individuals from seeking help 662 61.0 58.1–63.9
Overall, 662 (61.0%) of the study participants were deterred from seeking help for mental illnesses due to stigma, with 320(48.3%) of them being male and 342 (51.7%) of them being female*.

*p-value significant at level ≤0.05

The results of the chi-square test indicated a notable association between the occurrences of stigma related to mental illness (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the proportion of help-seeking behavior across genders (p > 0.05). Also, there was a significant association between the prevalence of mental illness-related stigma and help-seeking behavior. (p < 0.05) Fig 1.

Fig 1. The association between the prevalence of mental illness-related stigma and help-seeking behavior based on participants’ gender.

Fig 1

Our multivariate analysis shows that stigma related to mental illness is significantly linked to help-seeking behavior. Specifically, individuals with mental illness-related stigma are more likely to avoid seeking help due to stigma compared to those without stigma, (B = 0.53, OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.25–2.34). Additionally, age and residence are important factors because they are significantly associated with help-seeking behavior. Notably, the young adult group aged 30−41 years was more likely to seek help (B = 0.47, OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.01–3.20) than other age groups. Conversely, residents of Al-Qura were less likely to seek help (B = −0.48, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44–0.88) compared to those living in Al-Hofuf. However, experience in dealing with individuals with mental illness was not associated with help-seeking behavior (B = 0.22, OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.96–1.62) compared to those without such experience (p > 0.05). Similarly, gender, education, employment status, and marital status showed no significant association with help-seeking behavior (p > 0.05) Table 5.

Table 5. Predictors of help-seeking behavior among the population living in Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia (n = 1085).

Predictors Unadjusted model Adjusted model
B OR (95% CI) p-value B OR (95% CI) p-value
Prevalence of mental illness-related stigma Individuals with no Stigma R.
Individuals who has Stigma 0.54 1.72(1.27-2.33)* 0.001 0.54 1.71(1.25-2.34)* 0.001
Age in years 18-29 R.
30-41 0.47 1.59(1.06-2.39)* 0.025 0.59 1.8(1.00-3.2)* 0.046
42-53 -0.36 0.96(0.69-1.35) 0.833 0.20 1.22(0.71-2.13) 0.48
54-65 -0.37 0.69(0.50-0.95) * 0.4230.023 -0.04 0.96(0.51-1.82) 0.900
>65 -0.13 0.88(0.478-1.63) 0.687 0.31 1.37(0.57-3.28) 0.483
Gender Male R
Female -0.13 0.88(0.69-1.12) 0.305 -0.11 0.90(0.68 -1.20) 0.462
Place of residence Al-Hofuf
Al-Mubarraz -0.23 0.79(0.58-1.08) 0.149 -0.23 0.8(0.58-1.1) 0.161
Al-Qura -0.41 0.66(0.48-0.92)* 0.015 -0.48 0.62(0.44-0.88)* 0.007
Education Level No Formal Education R
School Level 0.73 0.48(0.05-4.71) 0.530 -0.66 0.52(0.05-5.19) 0.576
Collage Level or Equivalent -0.64 0.53(0.05-5.10) 0.581 -0.66 0.52(0.05-5.19) 0.576
Higher Education -0.58 0.56(0.06-5.57) 0.620 -0.87 0.42(0.04-4.34) 0.466
Employment Status Student R
Employed 0.16 1.17 (0.832-1.64) 0.530 0.25 1.29(0.75 -2.22) 0.362
Unemployed 0.05 1.1 (0.68-1.61) 0.581 0.261 1.30(0.70-2.41) 0.41
Retired -0.33 0.72(0.51-1.02) 0.620 0.07 1.07(0.54-2.13) 0.84
Marital Statues Single R
Married -0.24 0.79(0.59-1.04) 0.090 -0.42 0.66 (0.4-1.09) 0.103
Divorced -0.19 0.83(0.35-1.98) 0.672 -0.39 1.68 (0.253 -1.83 0.445
Widowed -0.63 0.53(0.23-1.23) 0.139 -0.67 0.51 (0.193 -1.35) 0.177
Experience Yes
No 0.21 1.23(0.95-1.59) 0.106 0.22 1.25 (0.96-1.62) 0.101

*Dependent variable: Help-Seeking Behavior.

Discussion

Mental health disorders are recognized as a significant public health issue globally; they rank among the primary contributors to disability, substance dependence, homelessness, suicide, and diminished quality of life for individuals [20,24,28]. In Europe and the USA, 52–74% of people with mental illness did not receive treatment due to stigma, which significantly impacted individuals’ readiness to seek help [30,44,52]. Estimating the prevalence and impact of stigma on help-seeking behavior and identifying factors associated with mental illness stigma is essential for improving population mental health outcomes [52]. Based on this focus, our study aimed to estimate the prevalence of mental illness stigma assess its impact on help-seeking behavior and to estimate the proportion of those who might not seek help due to stigma.

Prevalence of stigma-related mental illnesses

Our primary findings can be examined from various perspectives, including the widespread stigma associated with mental illness. Our research results revealed certain behaviors linked to mental illness stigma, such as reluctance to provide support, avoidance, and a lack of open interaction with individuals known or suspected to have mental illnesses; all of these behaviors contribute to the overall prevalence of mental illness-related stigma, which was recorded at 23.1%. The prevalence was found to be lower in developed nations like the United States [53] compared to developing countries such as Nigeria (41.5%) [54] Qatar (41.8%) [55] and China (49.5%) [56]. (These comparisons should be interpreted cautiously due to the differences in instruments, sampling and cultural context). This evidence documented that the prevalence of stigma-related mental illness varies across countries, which could be the result of the differences in the level of public awareness, cultures, religious values, levels of social support, level of development and accessibility to preventive services.

Interestingly, in terms of the prevalence of mental illness, stigma was lower in KSA than in developed and developing countries. This might be due to the KSA witnessing immense transformation in education, social and health sectors, in addition to an increase in public awareness, electronic health care services and universal health care coverage that can improve access and quality of care.

Gender-based differences in prevalence of mental illness stigma

On the other hand, the stigma is significantly associated with gender; the prevalence was higher among males than among females. This finding is inconsistent with a study conducted in India by Kiesza et al., who reported that mental illness stigma among women is greater than among men [57,58], while consistent with other studies, which highlighted that mental illness stigma among males is higher than among females [59]. Another study reported there is no difference at all in the prevalence of stigma among all genders [25]. (These comparisons should be interpreted cautiously due to the differences in instruments, sampling and cultural context). Based on these findings, we observed that males and females experienced stigma, though the prevalence of stigma-related mental illness varies among them, which may allow us to suggest that all genders should receive mental health services to lower stigma and develop positive attitudes towards mental illness.

In terms of the factors linked to mental illness stigma, the study’s findings indicates that males and females concurred on several influences, including family beliefs, peer and friend impact, the educational environment, social media platforms, health awareness initiatives, and personal experiences, as contributing factors to mental illness stigma. This observation aligns with some of the factors identified by NASM in 2016. Similarly, another research study conducted in the UAE highlighted the significance of traditional culture, family, and religious values [60]. Based on the preceding discussion, it is evident that there is a lack of consensus among researchers regarding the factors related to mental illness stigma, as they approach the topic from various perspectives and angles.

Help-seeking behavior and associated factors

Significantly, the examination of the variables related to help-seeking behavior is noteworthy. Our research indicates that approximately two-thirds of the participants in the study refrained from seeking assistance for mental illnesses due to the negative stigma associated with mental health in their communities, apprehension about being judged or stigmatized, and a reluctance to discuss their situation with family and friends, particularly among males compared to females. Numerous prior studies have addressed the barriers to help-seeking in various regions around the world.They reported that not seeking help for mental illnesses is influenced by a range of factors such as fear of being judged, family beliefs, fear of losing face, labelling, status loss, separation and discrimination [57,61,62]. It is also worth noting that recent reviews and meta‐analyses have confirmed the association and correlation between mental illness-related stigma and help‐seeking [63–65]. On the other hand, the study reported that stigma significantly associated with lower help-seeking behavior and treatment dropout [4,66]. These findings support the notion that providing mental health services, addressing mental illness stigma, promoting evidence-based treatment and incorporating religious and social values increase the likelihood of help-seeking behavior.

Predictors of help-seeking behavior

Our multivariate analysis confirmed that the mental illness-related stigma is significantly associated with help-seeking behavior; in other words, individuals who perceive mental illness-related stigma are more likely to avoid seeking help. This is consistent with findings of studies conducted in China [67] and India [57]. Precisely, the young adult group of 30–41-year-olds was determined to be more likely to seek help than other age groups. These findings align with previous research within the Saudi context suggesting that younger Saudis tend to be more openness to help‑seeking compared to older generations [68]. While it’s in contrast to Vanheusden et al., who reported that young adults are less likely to seek help for mental health problems [69].

Generally this reflect the generational shift young adults, are increasingly inclined to seek assistance, The younger generation has become more open to mental health discussions as a result of both local and global awareness campaigns and social media influence, which contributed in their healthy literacy and enhanced their understanding of mental illnesses. Among young adults, females have increasingly engaged with mental health services due to the societal changes, greater awareness and a greater tendency toward emotionally expressive to seek support when facing challenges. However, males, particularly older individuals, may face stigma and cultural barriers that discourage seeking help [70]. The culture expectation of masculinity also discourage emotional expression and help seeking behaviors, as males are expected to handle their problem independently and without external assistance. This may scaling up stigma around mental illnesses and further discouraging individuals from seeking help from the appropriate sources [71]. Conversely, residents of Al-Qura were found to be less inclined to seek help. This may be due to individuals living in rural areas being more likely to adhere to their cultural values and beliefs. Nevertheless, other sociodemographic factors such as gender, education, employment status, and marital status did not show any association with help-seeking behavior. These findings align with those of a prior study conducted in China [72] and are consistent with the findings of Clark et al. in 2020, which indicated that females are more likely to seek help compared to males [73].

Taken together, these findings suggest that efforts to reduce mental-illness stigma and promote help-seeking should consider ageand gender-specific sociocultural factors.Targeted interventions for younger adults may leverage their openness and access to information, while strategies aimed for men and residents of certain regions should address cultural barriers and societal expectations that inhibit help-seeking within Saudi community.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Our study reveals that the prevalence of mental illness-related stigma was lower as compared with that reported neighboring countries such as Qatar. Nevertheless, around two-thirds of the study participants avoided seeking help for mental illnesses. Though all gender agreed upon family beliefs, friends and peer influence, school or university environment, social media platform, health awareness campaigns and personal experiences respectively are factors associated with mental illness stigma. Our multivariate analysis confirmed that the mental illness-related stigma is significantly associated with help-seeking behavior. Precisely, young adults were determined to be more likely to seek help than other age groups. Participants resident in rural areas were less likely to seek help. These results carry significant implications for the formulation of interventions aimed at addressing mental illness stigma and promoting help-seeking behavior. It is essential to set policies, create a supportive environment, promote access to mental health care, offer evidence-based treatment and have a positive impact on help-seeking outcomes. However, further applied research is necessary to ensure a beneficial impact on help-seeking outcomes.

Study limitation

There are many limitations that need to be taken into consideration. First: the assessment of prevalence and help-seeking behavior depends on participants’ self-reports, which may be subject to recall bias, social desirability bias, and the study subjected to non-response bias, which may limit the accuracy and generalizability of the finding to mitigate these potential biases, we emphasized anonymous and confidential data collection and structured questions to reduce judgmental framing. Second: content validity: In absence of conducting factor analysis, content validity was assessed based on rigorous literature review, expert consultation, focus group discussions also guided by the general concept of the stigma scale “Link’s Devaluation–Discrimination Scale” [13], and” Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale”, which may affect the generalizability of the results. Third: this research faces limitations regarding the diversity of the geographic regions represented in the sample. Fourth, the cross-sectional study design may preclude any causal relationship from being established between influencing factors and formal help-seeking. Future studies should consider these limitations, thus increasing the research results’ applicability and utilization.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from the study participants, who were briefed about the purpose of the study, the confidentiality and privacy of data gathered, and assurance that their information would only be used for the intended purposes of this study.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Dataset file sav format (S1_sav_Supplementry file).

(SAV)

pone.0350860.s001.sav (43.8KB, sav)
S2 Data. Dataset file excel format (S2_data file_excel).

(XLSX)

pone.0350860.s002.xlsx (95.6KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the following, students Suliman Almusallam, Abdulmajeed Alobud, Zakaria Alsaeed, Abdulmalik Alsarawi, for their cooperation in data collection. Finally, we acknowledge the support of the Dean of the College of Applied Medical Sciences for the support and approval that led to the smooth implementation of the research.

Generative AI statement: The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Data Availability

repository name: FIGSHARE: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31811980.v2.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant No. KFU260893]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gautam S, Jain A, Chaudhary J, Gautam M, Gaur M, Grover S. Concept of mental health and mental well-being, it’s determinants and coping strategies. Indian J Psychiatry. 2024;66(Suppl 2):S231–44. doi: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_707_23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yang S, Gu C. Exploring the principles of the influence of mental illness on decision-making. SHS Web Conf. 2023;162:01043. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/202316201043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Haase E. Exploring the connections between mental health and our environment. Psychiatric Times. 2024;41(4). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Evans L, Chang A, Dehon J, Streb M, Bruce M, Clark E, et al. The relationships between perceived mental illness prevalence, mental illness stigma, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Curr Psychol. 2023;:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04329-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kirkbride JB, Anglin DM, Colman I, Dykxhoorn J, Jones PB, Patalay P, et al. The social determinants of mental health and disorder: evidence, prevention and recommendations. World Psychiatry. 2024;23(1):58–90. doi: 10.1002/wps.21160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Őri D, Szocsics P, Molnár T, Ralovich FV, Huszár Z, Bene Á, et al. Stigma towards mental illness and help-seeking behaviors among adult and child psychiatrists in Hungary: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2022;17(6):e0269802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all. World Health Organization. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Al-Hashemi T, Al-Mahrouqi T, Al-Huseini S, Al Salmi M, Al Nuumani R, Al Balushi F, et al. Mental Health Stigma and Help-Seeking Behaviors Among Primary Healthcare Physicians in Oman. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025;22(7):983. doi: 10.3390/ijerph22070983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing Stigma. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27(1):363–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Corrigan PW, Rafacz J, Rüsch N. Examining a progressive model of self-stigma and its impact on people with serious mental illness. Psychiatry Res. 2011;189(3):339–43. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.05.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Corrigan PW, Kleinlein P. The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma. On the Stigma of Mental Illness: Practical Strategies for Research and Social Change. American Psychological Association. 2005. 11–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ritsher JB, Otilingam PG, Grajales M. Internalized stigma of mental illness: psychometric properties of a new measure. Psychiatry Res. 2003;121(1):31–49. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2003.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Link BG. Understanding Labeling Effects in the Area of Mental Disorders: An Assessment of the Effects of Expectations of Rejection. American Sociological Review. 1987;52(1):96. doi: 10.2307/2095395 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Corrigan PW, Watson AC, Barr L. The Self–Stigma of Mental Illness: Implications for Self–Esteem and Self–Efficacy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2006;25(8):875–84. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.8.875 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Watson AC, Corrigan P, Larson JE, Sells M. Self-stigma in people with mental illness. Schizophr Bull. 2007;33(6):1312–8. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbl076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alharbi AA, Aljerian NA, Binhotan MS, Alghamdi HA, Alsultan AK, Arafat MS, et al. Digital Surveillance of Mental Health Care Services in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study of National e-Referral System Data. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2025;11:e64257. doi: 10.2196/64257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schnyder N, Panczak R, Groth N, Schultze-Lutter F. Association between mental health-related stigma and active help-seeking: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2017;210(4):261–8. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.116.189464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Charlson F, van Ommeren M, Flaxman A, Cornett J, Whiteford H, Saxena S. New WHO prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2019;394(10194):240–8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30934-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Niomh, N. (2019). Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness
  • 20.Sacco R, Camilleri N, Eberhardt J, Umla-Runge K, Newbury-Birch D. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of mental disorders among children and adolescents in Europe. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024;33(9):2877–94. doi: 10.1007/s00787-022-02131-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ibrahim NK. Epidemiology of Mental Health Problems in the Middle East. Handbook of Healthcare in the Arab World. Springer International Publishing. 2021. 133–49. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36811-1_12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ghader N, AlMheiri N, Fikri A, AbdulRazzak H, Saleheen H, Saddik B, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with mental illness symptoms among school students post lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Arab Emirates: A cross-sectional national study. PLoS One. 2024;19(2):e0296479. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khaled SM, Alhussaini NWZ, Alabdulla M, Sampson NA, Kessler RC, Woodruff PW, et al. Lifetime prevalence, risk, and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders in Qatar’s national mental health study. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2024;33(S1):e2011. doi: 10.1002/mpr.2011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alghadeer SM, Alhossan AM, Al-Arifi MN, Alrabiah ZS, Ali SW, Babelghaith SD, et al. Prevalence of mental disorders among patients attending primary health care centers in the capital of Saudi Arabia. Neurosciences Journal. 2018;23(3):238–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ward EJ, Fragala MS, Birse CE, Hawrilenko M, Smolka C, Ambwani G, et al. Assessing the impact of a comprehensive mental health program on frontline health service workers. PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0294414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Drew N, Funk M. Mental health and development: targeting people with mental health conditions as a vulnerable group. World Health Organization. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Taylor HL, Menachemi N, Gilbert A, Chaudhary J, Blackburn J. Economic Burden Associated With Untreated Mental Illness in Indiana. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(10):e233535. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sellers R, Warne N, Pickles A, Maughan B, Thapar A, Collishaw S. Cross-cohort change in adolescent outcomes for children with mental health problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60(7):813–21. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.McNally RJ. What is mental illness?. Harvard University Press. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wainberg ML, Scorza P, Shultz JM, Helpman L, Mootz JJ, Johnson KA, et al. Challenges and Opportunities in Global Mental Health: a Research-to-Practice Perspective. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19(5):28. doi: 10.1007/s11920-017-0780-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Henderson C, Evans-Lacko S, Thornicroft G. Mental illness stigma, help seeking, and public health programs. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(5):777–80. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Grey M, Schulman-Green D, Knafl K, Reynolds NR. A revised Self- and Family Management Framework. Nurs Outlook. 2015;63(2):162–70. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Alanazi TNM, McKenna L, Buck M. The Nature and Availability of Mental Health Services in Arab Gulf Countries: A Scoping Review. Saudi J Health Syst Res. 2023;3(1–4):10–34. doi: 10.1159/000531699 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.MOH. Anti-Discrimination Policy. https://www.moh.gov.sa/en/Ministry/Information-and-services/Pages/psychiatry.aspx 2024 September.
  • 35.Coombs NC, Meriwether WE, Caringi J, Newcomer SR. Barriers to healthcare access among U.S. adults with mental health challenges: A population-based study. SSM Popul Health. 2021;15:100847. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sarno L, Ratti MM, Spotti D, Delli Zotti GB, Rossi A. Social support, psychological distress and depression in hemodialysis patients. Psicologia della salute: quadrimestrale di psicologia e scienze della salute. 2017;1:112–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mohammed AA, Alomair SM, Alnijadi AA, Almulhim AS, Aziz FA, Hammad MA, et al. Barriers to psychiatric illness treatment in Saudi Arabia: A population-based cross-sectional study. Malaysian Journal of Medicine & Health Sciences. 2024;20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hickey JE, Pryjmachuk S, Waterman H. Exploring personal recovery in mental illness through an Arabic sociocultural lens. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24(2–3):163–70. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mannarini S, Rossi A. Assessing mental illness stigma: a complex issue. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;9:2722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Eisenberg D, Downs MF, Golberstein E, Zivin K. Stigma and help seeking for mental health among college students. Med Care Res Rev. 2009;66(5):522–41. doi: 10.1177/1077558709335173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Semrau M, Evans-Lacko S, Koschorke M, Ashenafi L, Thornicroft G. Stigma and discrimination related to mental illness in low- and middle-income countries. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2015;24(5):382–94. doi: 10.1017/S2045796015000359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Moore KE, Stuewig JB, Tangney JP. THE EFFECT OF STIGMA ON CRIMINAL OFFENDERS’ FUNCTIONING: A LONGITUDINAL MEDIATIONAL MODEL. Deviant Behav. 2016;37(2):196–218. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2014.1004035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.AlFattani A, Bilal L, Saad SY, Naseem MT, Hyder S, Alhabib A, et al. Effect of perceived stigma on work and social roles among individuals with mental health disorders in Saudi Arabia: findings from a national survey. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2023;22(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12991-023-00482-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Clement S, Schauman O, Graham T, Maggioni F, Evans-Lacko S, Bezborodovs N, et al. What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychol Med. 2015;45(1):11–27. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714000129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chandrasekara WS. Help seeking attitudes towards mental health problems and actual help seeking behavior. Res J Soc Sci Manag. 2016;5(9):45–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Altwaijri YA, Al-Habeeb A, Al-Subaie AS, Bilal L, Al-Desouki M, Shahab MK, et al. Twelve-month prevalence and severity of mental disorders in the Saudi National Mental Health Survey. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2020;29(3):e1831. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.AlAteeq D, AlDaoud A, AlHadi A, AlKhalaf H, Milev R. The experience and impact of stigma in Saudi people with a mood disorder. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2018;17:51. doi: 10.1186/s12991-018-0221-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dawood E, Modayfer O. Public attitude towards mental illness and mental health services in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Res Hum Soc Sci. 2016;6(24):63–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Elmosaad YM, Al Rajeh AM, Llaguno MBB, Alqaimi SS, Alsalman AM, Alkishi AY, et al. Self-Reported Household Waste Recycling and Segregation Practices among Families in Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):1790. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Al Rajeh AM, Mahmud I, Al Imam MH, Rahman MA, Al Shehri F, Alomayrin S, et al. E-Cigarette Use among Male Smokers in Al-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;20(1):143. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Corrigan PW, Michaels PJ, Vega E, Gause M, Watson AC, Rüsch N. Self-stigma of mental illness scale--short form: reliability and validity. Psychiatry Res. 2012;199(1):65–9. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.04.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Omondi K. Mental health stigma and its impact on help-seeking behavior. International Journal of Humanity and Social Sciences. 2024;3(3):15–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Parcesepe AM, Cabassa LJ. Public stigma of mental illness in the United States: a systematic literature review. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2013;40(5):384–99. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0430-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tesfaye Y, Agenagnew L, Terefe Tucho G, Anand S, Birhanu Z, Ahmed G, et al. Attitude and help-seeking behavior of the community towards mental health problems. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kehyayan V, Mahfoud Z, Ghuloum S, Marji T, Al-Amin H. Internalized Stigma in Persons With Mental Illness in Qatar: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front Public Health. 2021;9:685003. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.685003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Modi L, Gedam SR, Shivji IA, Babar V, Patil PS. Comparison of total self-stigma between schizophrenia and alcohol dependence patients. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2018;7(3):10–5812. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kulesza M, Raguram R, Rao D. Perceived mental health related stigma, gender, and depressive symptom severity in a psychiatric facility in South India. Asian J Psychiatr. 2014;9:73–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2014.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Khan N, Kausar R, Khalid A, Farooq A. Gender differences among discrimination & stigma experienced by depressive patients in Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2015;31(6):1432–6. doi: 10.12669/pjms.316.8454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Chatmon BN. Males and Mental Health Stigma. Am J Mens Health. 2020;14(4):1557988320949322. doi: 10.1177/1557988320949322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Andrade G, Bedewy D, Elamin ABA, Abdelmonem KYA, Teir HJ, Alqaderi N. Attitudes towards mental health problems in a sample of United Arab Emirates’ residents. Middle East Curr Psychiatry. 2022;29(1). doi: 10.1186/s43045-022-00255-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Abdulla Z, Al-Darmaki F, Al Sabbah H. Mental health stigma in the UAE: female university students’ awareness and opinions. forsch! - Studentisches Online-Journal der Universität Oldenburg. 2021;1:50–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Njaka S, Ogbodo BA, Okpua NC, Uwa AN. A systematic review on prevalence and perceived impacts of associative stigma on mental health professionals. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences. 2023;18:100533. doi: 10.1016/j.ijans.2023.100533 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lien Y-J, Chen L, Cai J, Wang Y-H, Liu Y-Y. The power of knowledge: How mental health literacy can overcome barriers to seeking help. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2024;94(2):127–47. doi: 10.1037/ort0000708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Grosselli L, Baumgärtel J, Böhm H, Hoyer J, Knappe S. When knowledge falls short: A systematic review on the correlation of mental health knowledge with stigma and help‐seeking. Mental Health Science. 2025;3(2):e70022. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Conceição V, Rothes I, Gusmão R. The association between stigmatizing attitudes towards depression and help seeking attitudes in college students. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Crowe A, Averett P, Glass JS, Dotson-Blake K, Grissom S, Ficken D, et al. Mental Health Stigma: Personal and Cultural Impacts on Attitudes. JCP. 2011. doi: 10.22229/spc801925 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Sum MY, Chan SK, Tsui HK, Wong GH. Stigma towards mental illness, resilience, and help‐seeking behaviours in undergraduate students in Hong Kong. Early Intervention in Psychiatry. 2024;18(3):181–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Alnaim M, Abdulmohsen AM, Othman A. Al S, Hamad A. Al S, Wasayf M. Al S, Munirah I. Al K, et al. Generational perspectives on stigma and help-seeking for mental health disorders in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. SMHJ. 2025;5(3):186–96. doi: 10.54293/smhj.v5i3.164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Vanheusden K, Mulder CL, van der Ende J, van Lenthe FJ, Mackenbach JP, Verhulst FC. Young adults face major barriers to seeking help from mental health services. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(1):97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mahsoon A, Sharif L, Banakhar M, Alasmee N, Almowallad E, Jabali R, et al. Parental Support, Beliefs about Mental Illness, and Mental Help-Seeking among Young Adults in Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5615. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Nagai S, Kimura M, Honda M, Iida T, Mizuno H. (2023). Gender Differences in Help‐Seeking: A Meta‐analysis of Japanese Studies, Including Unreported Data 1. Japanese Psychological Research. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Zhao M, Hu M. A multilevel model of the help-seeking behaviors among adolescents with mental health problems. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. 2022;16:946842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Clark LH, Hudson JL, Rapee RM, Grasby KL. Investigating the impact of masculinity on the relationship between anxiety specific mental health literacy and mental health help-seeking in adolescent males. J Anxiety Disord. 2020;76:102292. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohamed Said

20 Nov 2025

-->PONE-D-25-57473-->-->Mental Illness Stigma and its impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghazi I. Al Jowf,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.-->--> -->-->Please submit your revised manuscript within Jan 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All relevant data are within the manuscript, supplementary data can be provided on request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

3. Please be informed that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Thanks for this interesting paper to review,The content of this manuscript is relevant to the scope of PLOS. The study addresses a critical public health issue, mental illness stigma and its impact on help-seeking behavior. With 1085 participants, the study has strong statistical power and allows for meaningful subgroup analysis. The use of descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression provides a solid framework to explore associations and predictors.

Reviewer #2: The topic is relevant to public health and aligns with the aims of PLOS ONE, addressing stigma and mental health service utilization in a Middle Eastern context that remains under-researched. However, substantial revisions are required to meet the journal’s methodological and reporting standards.

General Assessment

The study addresses an important issue and contributes potentially valuable regional data to the global literature on mental illness stigma and help-seeking behavior. The manuscript demonstrates commendable effort in sample recruitment and descriptive reporting. Nevertheless, the current version requires significant improvement in conceptual framing, methodological rigor, data interpretation, and formal presentation. The design, though appropriate in general terms, lacks validation details of the measurement tools and shows inconsistencies between the statistical analysis and the conclusions drawn.

Overall, I recommend Major Revision before the paper can be considered for publication.

Evaluation According to PLOS ONE Criteria

1. The study presents the results of original research

The study appears original and has not been previously published. The topic is timely and underexplored in the Saudi context. However, the authors should explicitly state in the introduction what gap in the existing literature their work addresses and how it contributes beyond descriptive regional data.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere

There is no indication that the results were published elsewhere;

this criterion is met.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

The statistical analyses (chi-square and logistic regression) are appropriate in principle, but the operationalization of key variables is insufficiently justified.

The self-developed stigma and help-seeking scales lack validation against recognized instruments (e.g., Link’s Devaluation–Discrimination Scale, or the Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale).

The reported “response rate of 141.5%” is a critical methodological error and must be corrected or clarified.

No description of multicollinearity checks or model fit diagnostics is provided for logistic regression.

Dichotomization thresholds (e.g., “<5 indicates no stigma”) are arbitrary and require theoretical or empirical justification.

This criterion is unmet

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

Conclusions are generally consistent with the data, but they are overstated. For instance, labeling the prevalence of stigma as “low” is not justified without comparative, methodologically similar data. The claim that “young adults and females are more likely to seek help” should be discussed in a socio-cultural context rather than simply restating numerical findings. It requires significant revision for interpretative depth and caution.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English

The manuscript is intelligible but contains numerous grammatical, syntactic, and stylistic errors.

o Subject–verb disagreement (“The study indicate…” → “The study indicates”).

o Inconsistent terminology (“mental illness stigma”, “mental health stigma”).

o Redundant phrasing and repetition throughout.

Requires thorough language editing by a native or professional scientific editor.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

Ethical approval and informed consent are appropriately stated. However, the Data Availability section is inconsistent: the form declares “data are fully available”, while the manuscript says “available upon reasonable request”. PLOS ONE requires unrestricted data availability. This inconsistency must be resolved.

Ethical criteria met; data transparency not yet compliant.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

The paper lacks adherence to established reporting guidelines for cross-sectional studies (e.g., STROBE).

Tables are clear but lack clear variable definitions and labeling consistency. The instrument development process should be described in detail, including item examples and scoring rationale.

Partial compliance; improvement needed for transparency and replicability.

Major Comments

1. Conceptual Framing

The introduction should include a stronger theoretical grounding in stigma research (e.g., Corrigan & Watson’s framework; Link & Phelan’s model). The current framing is descriptive rather than analytical.

Corrigan PW, Watson AC. Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry. 2002 Feb;1(1):16-20. PMID: 16946807; PMCID: PMC1489832.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678626

2. Instrument Validation

Provide detailed information on how the stigma and help-seeking scales were developed, tested, and validated. If they are novel, include factor analysis and reliability indices beyond Cronbach’s alpha.

3. Statistical Analysis

Explain the rationale for the dichotomization of stigma and help-seeking scores. Consider reanalyzing the data using continuous or ordinal scales to preserve statistical power.

4. Interpretation of Results

The discussion section should distinguish between association and causation. Statements implying that stigma “leads to” help-seeking avoidance should be rephrased to reflect a correlational design.

5. Comparative Context

Avoid direct comparisons with prevalence rates from other countries unless similar instruments and populations were used. Instead, emphasize contextual explanations (e.g., cultural norms, healthcare infrastructure).

6. Data Transparency

Make all de-identified data and the full questionnaire publicly available (e.g., via a repository link).

7. Language and Readability

The manuscript needs comprehensive professional English editing to meet publication standards.

Minor Comments

1. Check consistency of numerical data between abstract, results, and tables.

2. Correct typographical and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., decimal points, percentage spacing).

3. Ensure all references follow PLOS ONE style (complete DOI, correct capitalization).

4. Revise phrases like “the study indicate that” and “vice versa” for clarity and conciseness.

5. Replace “low” or “high” with quantitative descriptors where possible (e.g., “23.1%, lower than in prior regional studies”).

6. Verify that the ethical approval number matches the institutional record.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?     For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:     Elisa Caselani

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of Manuscript_PLOS 251108.docx

pone.0350860.s003.docx (17.8KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Jun 24;21(6):e0350860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350860.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Feb 2026

We have addressed all the comments provided by the Editor and the reviewers. Our detailed point-by-point responses are included in the attached 'Response to Reviewers' file, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 17-02-2026.docx

pone.0350860.s004.docx (40.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mohamed Said

2 Mar 2026

-->PONE-D-25-57473R1-->-->Mental Illness Stigma and its impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Al Jowf,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.-->--> -->-->Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 16 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1:     It is difficult to thoroughly review the manuscript in its current form due to the absence of line numbers and insufficient paragraph structure. Adding line numbers and improving the paragraph division would greatly facilitate a more precise and constructive review and make it easier for the reader.

References vary, sometimes tendency of APA 7 and sometimes tendency of Vancouver, this need to be checked out. In text another reference system.

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction,as I can see you write All relevant data are within the manuscript, supplementary data can be provided on request, where is all data, it is only the analysis provided in the paper.

Reviewer #2:     Re: Second Review - Response to Authors’ Replies

Manuscript: Mental Illness Stigma and its Impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Journal: PLOS ONE

Dear Editor,

I thank the authors for their revised manuscript and their point-by-point responses to the first round of comments. I acknowledge that several concerns have been adequately addressed, including expanding the theoretical framework in the introduction (Corrigan & Watson; Link & Phelan), addressing the socio-cultural interpretation of gender and age differences in help-seeking, and revising the language and formatting.

However, several substantive methodological issues remain insufficiently resolved. I outline these below, distinguishing between points that I consider satisfactorily addressed, those that require minor revision, and those that represent major outstanding concerns.

1. Points Considered Satisfactorily Addressed

The following points from the first round have been addressed to a satisfactory degree and require no further revision:

• 3.4 (multicollinearity check), 5.1–5.3 (language corrections), 6.1 (ethical approval), 7.1 (STROBE alignment), 7.2 (table corrections), 8.1 (theoretical grounding), 11 (causation vs. correlation language), 15–20 (minor corrections).

2. Major Outstanding Concerns

Point 3.2 and 9.1 and 9.2 - Instrument Validation (MAJOR, UNRESOLVED)

Original concern: The self-developed stigma and help-seeking scales lack validation against recognized instruments. Factor analysis and additional reliability indices were requested.

The authors’ response acknowledges the absence of formal validation but argues that conceptual alignment with Link's Devaluation–Discrimination Scale and the Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale is sufficient. This is not acceptable for a PLOS ONE submission. Conceptual alignment during item generation is a preliminary step, not a substitute for psychometric validation.

Specifically:

(a) The claim that the questionnaire is “not a novel scale” and therefore does not require factor analysis is incorrect. Any self-developed instrument, regardless of its conceptual origins, requires structural validation particularly when used to produce prevalence estimates that form the primary outcome of the study.

(b) Cronbach’s alpha (0.83) measures internal consistency but provides no evidence of construct validity, dimensionality, or criterion-related validity.

(c) The revised manuscript should either: (i) report an exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis to establish the dimensional structure of the instrument; or (ii) include an explicit acknowledgment in the Limitations section that the absence of formal psychometric validation is a significant constraint on the generalizability and comparability of findings. This limitation must be discussed substantively, not simply mentioned in passing.

Point 3.5 and 10.1 - Dichotomization Thresholds (MAJOR, PARTIALLY RESOLVED)

Original concern: Dichotomization thresholds are arbitrary. Reanalysis using continuous or ordinal scales was recommended.

The authors justify using the mean as a cutoff by citing two previous studies (Lapham et al., 2022; Hadera et al., 2019). This justification remains weak. Neither reference appears to use a comparable instrument or study design, and citing precedent for a practice does not resolve its methodological limitations.

Furthermore, note that the response document itself contains an internal contradiction: under Point 3.5, it states both 'Mean score ≥ 5 indicates no mental illness-related stigma' AND 'indicates presence of mental illness-related stigma', these are mutually exclusive and suggest the revision was not reviewed carefully.

Furthermore, the Methods section (p. 12) contains another logical contradiction in the definition of the help-seeking cutoff that was not present in the response letter but appears in the revised manuscript: “a score of less than 3 indicates seeking help and a score <3 indicates being deterred from seeking help”. Both conditions use the same threshold (<3) to define two mutually exclusive outcomes, which is logically impossible and renders the operationalization of the outcome variable unintelligible.

The authors should at minimum: (i) correct the internal contradictions noted above in both the response document and the manuscript; (ii) provide a more substantive theoretical or empirical rationale for the specific cutoff of 5 (not simply that the mean was used); (iii) acknowledge in the Limitations section that dichotomization leads to loss of information and may inflate or deflate prevalence estimates depending on the distribution of scores.

Point 6.2 and 13 - Data Availability (UNRESOLVED, POLICY VIOLATION)

This issue was raised in the first round of review and remains unresolved. The submission form contains a direct contradiction: the authors selected “Yes - all data are fully available without restriction” but then wrote in the text box below: “supplementary data can be provided on request”. These two statements are mutually exclusive. Additionally, the Data Availability statement in the manuscript (p. 13) states that data are "available as supplementary file" without providing any repository link, DOI, or accession number.

PLOS ONE’s data availability policy is unambiguous: data must be fully and unconditionally available at the time of publication, without requiring readers to contact the authors. Stating that data are available "on request" or "as a supplementary file" without a retrievable location does not meet this requirement.

To comply, the authors must take one of the following actions before resubmission:

1.

Deposit the full de-identified dataset in a recognized public repository (e.g., Figshare, Zenodo, OSF, or Dryad), obtain a DOI, and include it in the Data Availability Statement; or

2.

Upload the dataset as a formal supplementary file through the journal submission system, ensuring it is publicly accessible upon publication - not upon request.

The Data Availability Statement in the manuscript must then be updated to reflect exactly where and how the data can be accessed, with a direct link or DOI. Failure to resolve this point may result in rejection on editorial policy grounds, independent of the scientific merit of the study.

Adjunctive comments not previously recommended (MAJOR)

Critical Statistical Error: Significance Threshold (UNRESOLVED, PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE MANUSCRIPT)

A systematic typographical error appears repeatedly throughout the manuscript and has not been corrected in this revision. In Tables 2, 3, and 4, in the Results section, and in the Abstract, the significance threshold is consistently reported as “p < 0.5” instead of the correct “p < 0.05”. The authors must conduct a thorough search of the entire manuscript including the abstract, all tables, all figure legends, and the results and discussion sections and replace every instance of “p < 0.5” with the correct threshold “p < 0.05”. The authors should also verify that all reported p-values in the tables are consistent with this corrected threshold and that no conclusions change as a result.

This error must be corrected before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

3. Minor Remaining Concerns

Point 3.3 - Response Rate (STILL REQUIRES CORRECTION IN THE MANUSCRIPT)

The authors' explanation in the response letter is acceptable: collecting more responses than the minimum required sample size is a legitimate methodological decision, and including all valid responses in the analysis is appropriate. However, the manuscript itself (Methods section, p. 10) still reads: “A total of 1085 responses were interviewed, yielding a response rate of 141.5%”.This sentence must be corrected in the manuscript text, as a response rate exceeding 100% is a formal error that cannot appear in a published article, regardless of the explanation provided separately in the response letter.

The authors should remove the response rate figure entirely and replace it with a sentence along the following lines: “A total of 1085 responses were collected, exceeding the minimum required sample size of 767. This was due to higher-than-expected participation in Al-Hofuf and Al-Qura. All responses were verified for completeness and validity and were included in the final analysis”.

Point 4.1 - Comparative Prevalence Framing (MINOR)

Original concern: Labeling stigma prevalence as 'low' without methodologically comparable data.

The authors have added comparative figures from other countries but acknowledge in Point 12 that different instruments and populations were used. The revised text should include a clear caveat whenever cross-national comparisons are made, explicitly noting that differences in instruments, sampling frames, and cultural contexts limit direct comparability. A sentence to this effect should be added each time comparative data are cited in the Discussion.

Point 5.1 - Typographical Errors in the Abstract (DECLARED AS CORRECTED, STILL PRESENT)

The authors stated in their response to Point 5.1 that subject-verb disagreement had been revised throughout the manuscript. However, the abstract (p. 7) still contains two uncorrected errors. First, “The study indicate” should read “The study indicates”. Second, the prevalence figure is reported as “23.1” without the percentage symbol, which should read “23.1%”. Both errors remain in the revised manuscript despite the authors explicitly declaring them as corrected. The authors must carefully proofread the abstract in its entirety, as these are the first sentences a reader encounters and their presence undermines the overall quality of the manuscript.

Point 12 - Cross-National Comparisons (MINOR)

Original concern: Direct comparisons with other countries using different instruments are methodologically problematic.

The authors’ response states they are “showing a trend”, but the manuscript does not adequately distinguish between trend-level observations and direct comparisons. This conflation risks misleading readers. I recommend the authors revise the relevant passages to use language such as 'rates appear higher/lower than those reported in studies from X, though direct comparison is limited by differences in measurement instruments and study populations.'

4. Summary Recommendation

In its current form, the manuscript cannot be recommended for acceptance. The four major concerns identified above: instrument validation, dichotomization justification, and data availability, must be fully resolved before the manuscript can be considered further. I encourage the authors to address these points thoroughly in the next revision.

I remain willing to review a further revised version of the manuscript.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?     For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:     Elisa Caselani

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 260226 PLOS one.docx

pone.0350860.s005.docx (161KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Second_Response_to_Authors_Stigma_PLOS.pdf

pone.0350860.s006.pdf (233.5KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Mohamed Said

15 Apr 2026

-->PONE-D-25-57473R2-->-->Mental Illness Stigma and its impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Al Jowf,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only     the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot     verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and has several strengths; however, the methodological concerns—particularly regarding sampling and measurement—need to be addressed to ensure the robustness and credibility of the findings.

1. Inconsistency in study timeline

The reported timeline requires clarification. The ethics approval number (KFU-REC-2024-OCT-ETHICS2653) indicates approval in October 2024, which aligns with the stated data collection period (October–November 2024). However, the Methods section (Page 9, Line 7) states the study was conducted in May 2025. Please resolve this inconsistency and clearly distinguish between the periods of ethical approval, data collection, and data analysis. If the May 2025 date is an error, correct it.

2. Sampling strategy and representativeness

The described sampling strategy requires further clarification. While a multi-stage sampling approach is reported, participant recruitment via social media platforms raises concerns about potential selection bias.

Please:

• Clarify whether social media was used only to contact pre-selected individuals (from resident lists using fixed interval sampling) or whether participants could self-select via shared links. If the latter, this constitutes convenience sampling and the manuscript must be revised accordingly.

• Report the number of individuals invited versus those who participated.

• Provide the response rate and describe handling of non-response.

• Discuss potential selection and non-response biases in the limitations section.

• Revise claims of "representative sampling" if not fully supported by the recruitment method.

3. Measurement and validation of the stigma construct (Critical)

The study relies on a modified questionnaire derived from existing scales. However, the authors reworded items, reduced the scale to 5 questions, created a new composite scoring system, and applied an arbitrary mean cutoff (≥5). This constitutes a novel instrument, not a validated scale. Cronbach's alpha (0.83) measures internal consistency but does not establish construct validity.

Given that the primary exposure variable (stigma) and the main prevalence estimate (23.1%) are derived from this unvalidated measure, additional validation is required.

The authors must:

Conduct Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the full sample (N=1085), which is more than sufficient for these procedures.

Report factor loadings, explained variance, and model fit indices (CFI, RMSEA, SRMR).

Re-evaluate the cutoff point empirically (e.g., using factor scores or ROC analysis) rather than relying on the mean.

Re-run all prevalence estimates and regression analyses using the validated scoring approach.

Clarify whether the scale is intended as a validated instrument or a composite indicator and discuss measurement limitations transparently.

If the authors choose not to perform factor analysis, they must provide a compelling methodological justification — though such justification is unlikely to satisfy PLOS ONE's requirement for technical soundness.

Minor Comments

1. Language and clarity

The manuscript would benefit from careful language editing to improve clarity and readability. Minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing are present throughout.

2. Terminology consistency

Correct "sigma" to "stigma" where it appears (e.g., Page 9, Line 28).

3. Interpretation of findings

Avoid causal language when discussing associations due to the cross-sectional design (e.g., revise "stigma reduces help-seeking" to "stigma is associated with lower help-seeking").

4. Data availability statement

The Figshare dataset (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.31811980.v2) appears to include only SPSS files. Please clarify whether the data are provided in a format accessible without proprietary software (e.g., CSV or Excel) to ensure full compliance with PLOS ONE data availability and reproducibility requirements.

Remove the duplicate "Informed Consent Statement" on Page 20.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to re-review your manuscript. You have addressed the questions I raised, and I appreciate your responses.

However, a few issues remain:

Line 29 is missing a period.

The paragraph structure throughout the manuscript is still inadequate and requires improvement.

In Table 3, the bottom horizontal line is missing.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?     For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:     Elisa Caselani

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Jun 24;21(6):e0350860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350860.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


27 Apr 2026

We attached a Response to Reviewers along with our updated manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 3rd.docx

pone.0350860.s008.docx (19.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Mohamed Said

1 May 2026

-->PONE-D-25-57473R3-->-->Mental Illness Stigma and its impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Al Jowf,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within Jun 15 2026 11:59PM from the date of this report. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only     the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot     verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I invite the authors to:

* Conduct and report EFA/CFA on the current sample to validate the stigma scale, or

* Provide a much stronger methodological justification for treating the scale as a composite indicator, including empirical justification for the cutoff (e.g., median split or ROC analysis) and re-running the main analysis with sensitivity checks.

Without addressing this, the validity of the core findings remains questionable.

Additionally, please report the response rate and add non-response bias to the limitations.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 Jun 24;21(6):e0350860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350860.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 4


9 May 2026

We added our comments in Response to Reviewer/ Editor as an attachment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R5.docx

pone.0350860.s009.docx (15.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 4

Mohamed Said

12 May 2026

-->PONE-D-25-57473R4-->-->Mental Illness Stigma and its impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Al Jowf,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 25 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only     the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot     verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please report the number of eligible individuals who were contacted and the calculated response rate (%). If this information was not recorded, please state this as a limitation and justify why it could not be calculated.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Decision Letter 5

Mohamed Said

19 May 2026

Mental Illness Stigma and its impact on Help-Seeking Behavior among Residents of the Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

PONE-D-25-57473R5

Dear Dr. Ghazi I. Al Jowf,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohamed Ahmed Said, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mohamed Said

PONE-D-25-57473R5

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Al Jowf,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Said

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Dataset file sav format (S1_sav_Supplementry file).

    (SAV)

    pone.0350860.s001.sav (43.8KB, sav)
    S2 Data. Dataset file excel format (S2_data file_excel).

    (XLSX)

    pone.0350860.s002.xlsx (95.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review of Manuscript_PLOS 251108.docx

    pone.0350860.s003.docx (17.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 17-02-2026.docx

    pone.0350860.s004.docx (40.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review 260226 PLOS one.docx

    pone.0350860.s005.docx (161KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Second_Response_to_Authors_Stigma_PLOS.pdf

    pone.0350860.s006.pdf (233.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_R2_04_04_26.docx

    pone.0350860.s007.docx (36.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 3rd.docx

    pone.0350860.s008.docx (19.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R5.docx

    pone.0350860.s009.docx (15.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R6.docx

    pone.0350860.s010.docx (14.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    repository name: FIGSHARE: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31811980.v2.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES