Exploring perceptions of depression: a performer perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Participants’ demographic characteristics by groups.

Characteristics n (%)	Athletes	Performing Artists	Military	General Population
Gender (ntotal = 197)  Male  Female  Other/intersex	97 57 (58.8%) 39 (40.2%) 1 (1%)	17 2 (11.8%) 15 (88.2%) 0 (0%)	26 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) 0 (0%)	57 37 (64.9%) 20 (35.1%) 0 (0%)
Age (ntotal = 197)  Young adults (18–21)  Adults (21+)	97 66 (68%) 31 (32%)	17 6 (64.7%) 11 (35.3%)	26 0 (0%) 26 (100%)	57 17 (29.8%) 40 (70.2%)
Highest level of education(ntotal = 197)  School to age 16  A levels/BTEC or equivalent  Further education  Degree  Postgraduate degree	97 15 (15.5%) 47 (48.5%) 8 (8.2%) 14 (14.4%) 13 (13.4%)	17 1 (5.9%) 3 (17.6%) 1 (5.9%) 8 (47.1%) 4 (23.5%)	26 0 (0%) 1 (3.8%) 2 (7.7%) 5 (19.2%) 18 (69.2%)	57 3 (5.3%) 13 (22.8%) 7 (12.3%) 16 (28.1%) 18 (31.6%)
Familiarity with mental health disorder(s) (ntotal = 182)  Through contact (ntotal = 112)   Depression   Eating disorders   Anxiety disorders   OCD   Bipolar and related disorders   PTSD   Other (e.g., psychosis)	90 38 (42.2%) 32 (35.6%) 16 (17.8%) 22 (24.4%) 7 (7.8%) 13 (14.4%) 3 (3.3%) 1 (1.1%)	13 12 (92.3%) 10 (76.9%) 11 (84.6%) 9 (69.2%) 8 (61.5%) 8 (61.5%) 5 (38.5%) 2 (15.4%)	25 20 (80%) 17 (68%) 3 (12%) 9 (36%) 2 (8%) 6 (24%) 10 (40%) 1 (4%)	54 42 (77.8%) 34 (63%) 11 (20.4%) 27 (50%) 10 (18.5) 12 (22.2) 7 (13%) 3 (5.6%)
Own history (ntotal = 50)   Depression   Eating disorders   Anxiety disorders   OCD   Bipolar and related disorders   PTSD   Other (e.g., psychosis)	17 (18.9%) 10 (11.2%) 1 (1.1%) 7 (7.9%) 2 (2.2%) 0 (0%) 2 (2.2%) 0 (0%)	9 (69.2%) 8 (61.5%) 4 (30.8%) 7 (53.8%) 2 (15.4%) 0 (0%) 3 (23.1%) 2 (15.4%)	4 (16%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%)	20 (37%) 15 (27.8%) 5 (9.3%) 14 (25.9%) 1 (1.9%) 1 (1.0%) 2 (3.7%) 0 (0%)
Confidence in helping someone experiencing mental health symptoms and/or disorder(s) (ntotal = 182)  Not at all confident  A little bit confident  Moderately  Quite a bit  Extremely confident	90 10 (11.1%) 36 (40%) 27 (30%) 15 (16.7%) 2 (2.2%)	13 0 (0%) 2 (15.4%) 6 (46.2%) 4 (30.8%) 1 (7.7%)	25 2 (8%) 7 (28%) 10 (40%) 5 (20%) 1 (4%)	54 2 (3.7%) 19 (35.2) 25 (46.3%) 7 (13%) 1 (1.9%)

Table 2. Mean (SD) and effect sizes depending on the severity for each vignette.

Variables	Levels of severity of symptoms of depression
	Vignette 1 No symptom of depression (n = 145)	Vignette 2 Mild symptoms of depression (n = 163)	Vignette 3 Moderate symptoms of depression (n = 139)	Vignette 4 Severe symptoms of depression (n = 151)	F(df)	Partial η^2	Post hoc tests
Level of concern M (SD) - Not at all (%) - A little bit worried (%) - Worried (%) Very worried (%) - Extremely worried (%)	1.15 (.70) 20 (13.8%) 89 (61.4%) 30 (20.7%) 6 (4.1%) 0 (0%)	2.05 (.81) 1 (0.6%) 41 (25.2%) 75 (46%) 41 (25.2%) 5 (3.1%)	2.83 (.85) 1 (0.7%) 7 (5%) 36 (25.9%) 65 (46.8%) 30 (21.6%)	3.60 (.71) 0 (0%) 3 (2%) 11 (7.3%) 30 (19.9%) 107 (70.9%)	109.4 (2.92, 385.2)***	.45	V4***>V3***>V2***>V1***
Level of severity selected M (SD) - No symptom of depression (%) - Mild/sub-clinical symptoms of depression (%) - Moderate symptoms of depression (%) - Severe symptoms of depression (%)	1.71 (.61) 54 (37.2%) 79 (54.4%) 12 (8.3%) 0 (0%)	2.45 (.60) 8 (4.9%) 74 (45.4%) 80 (49.1%) 1 (0.6%)	2.93 (.46) 2 (1.4%) 14 (10.1%) 115 (82.7%) 8 (5.8%)	3.79 (.52) 0 (0%) 8 (5.3%) 16 (10.6%) 127 (84.1%)	138.9 (2.8, 369)***	.51	V4***>V3***>V2***>V1***
Vignette recognition (%)	37.2% (.48)	45.4% (.50)	82.7% (.38)	84.1% (.37)	Cochran’s Q***
Difficulty to talk with M (SD) - No problem at all (%) - Slightly awkward (%) - 50/50 (%) - Somewhat difficult (%) - Extremely difficult (%)	.51 (.84) 96 (66.2%) 32 (22.1%) 9 (6.2%) 8 (5.5%) 0 (0%)	1.26 (1.06) 51 (31.3%) 42 (25.8%) 48 (29.4%) 21 (12.9%) 1 (0.6%)	1.58 (1.18) 35 (25.2%) 30 (21.6%) 36 (25.9%) 35 (25.2%) 3 (2.2%)	1.72 (1.33) 39 (25.8%) 28 (18.5%) 34 (22.5%) 36 (23.8%) 14 (9.3%)	20.45 (2.77, 366.1)***	.13	V4=V3>V2>V1
Help recommended (%)	46% (.50)	77% (.42)	92% (.27)	97% (.16)	Cochran’s Q***

Note: Small (Partial η²= 0.01), medium (Partial η²=  0.09), large (Partial η²= 0.15 or greater) effect size (Cohen, 1992; cited in Sofronoff et al., 2015).

*p-value < .05.

**p-value < .01.

***p-value < .001.

Table 3. Mean (SD) of participants’ difficulty to talk depending on the perceived severity for each vignette by age.

Variable	Levels of severity of symptoms of depression
Difficulty to talk	Vignette 1 No symptom of depression	Vignette 2 Mild symptoms of depression	Vignette 3 Moderate symptoms of depression	Vignette 4 Severe symptoms of depression
Participants over 21 years old M (SD)	.48 (.11)	1.24 (.13)	1.49 (.15)	1.40 (.17)
Participants 21 years old and under M (SD)	.36^a (.24)	.80^a (.29)	1.16^a (.32)	2.22^a (.36)

^a Based on modified population marginal mean.

Table 4. Mean in percentage (SD) of the options selected by the participants from a help-seeking list.

Help-seeking options	Level of severity of symptoms of depression
	Vignette 1 No symptom of depression % (SD) (n = 145)	Vignette 2 Mild symptoms of depression % (SD) (n = 162)	Vignette 3 Moderate symptoms of depression % (SD) (n = 139)	Vignette 4 Severe symptoms of depression % (SD) (n = 151)
1. A typical GP or family doctor	24% (.43)	50% (.50)	58% (.50)	57% (.50)
2. A chemist or pharmacist	3% (.16)	1% (.08)	2% (.15)	4% (.20)
3. A counsellor	17% (.37)	35% (.48)	47% (.50)	59% (.49)
4. A social worker	4% (.20)	6% (.23)	16% (.37)	17% (.38)
5. Telephone counselling service	3% (.18)	10% (.30)	23% (.42)	42% (.50)
6. A psychiatrist	3% (.18)	14% (.34)	32% (.47)	48% (.50)
7. A clinical psychologist	6% (.23)	21% (.41)	36% (48)	53% (.50)
8. Help from his close family	29% (.46)	41% (.49)	47% (50)	56% (.50)
9. Help from some close friends	30% (.46)	38% (.49)	50% (.50)	55% (.50)
10. A naturopath or an herbalist	0% (.00)	2% (.14)	3% (.17)	3% (.18)
11. The clergy, a minister or a priest	1% (.12)	2% (.16)	6% (.23)	10% (.30)
12. Other	1% (.08)	2% (.16)	0% (.00)	3% (.16)

Table 5. Means (SD) by items and by groups for the personal components of the Depression Stigma Scale.

Statement about Personal Beliefs about Depression		Depression Stigma Scale
	Overall (n = 138) M (SD)	Athletes (n = 69) M (SD)	Performing artists (n = 10) M (SD)	Military (n = 22) M (SD)	General population (n = 37) M (SD)
1. People with depression could snap out of it if they wanted *	4.25 (.79)	4.07 (.85)	4.50 (.53)	4.55 (.51)	4.35 (.82)
2. Depression is a sign of personal weakness **	4.35 (.88)	4.09 (1.01)	4.60 (.70)	4.68 (.48)	4.57 (.69)
3. Depression is not a real medical illness	4.46 (.85)	4.36 (.86)	4.80 (.42)	4.64 (.90)	4.46 (.87)
4. People with depression are dangerous	3.53 (1.01)	3.42 (.96)	3.70 (.95)	3.50 (1.10)	3.70 (1.08)
5. It is best to avoid people with depression, so you don’t become depressed yourself	4.30 (.73)	4.19 (.60)	4.20 (1.03)	4.59 (.73)	4.38 (.83)
6. People with depression are unpredictable	2.72 (.93)	2.64 (.86)	3.40 (.52)	3.00 (.98)	2.78 (1.08)
7. If I had depression, I would not tell anyone	3.34 (.93)	3.35 (.87)	4.00 (.94)	3.14 (1.13)	3.27 (.87)
8. I would not employ someone if I knew they had been depressed***	3.86 (.82)	3.93 (.67)	4.40 (.70)	3.23 (.81)	3.97 (.93)
9. I would not vote for a politician if I knew they had been depressed	3.87 (.88)	3.83 (.84)	4.40 (.70)	3.82 (.73)	3.84 (1.04)
Total	34.69 (4.31)	33.87 (4.34)	37.00 (2.87)	35.14 (4.29)	35.32 (4.37)

*p-value < .05.

**p-value < .01.

***p-value < .001.

Table 6. Summary of key findings.

Variables	Key Findings
Recognition abilities	Effect of the perceived level of severity (large effect size) No group effect No age effect
Level of concern	Effect of the perceived level of severity (large effect size) No group effect No age effect
Difficulty to talk with	Effect of the perceived level of severity (medium effect size) No group effect Age-related effect (small effect size)
Recommendation for help	Effect of the perceived level of severity No group effect No age effect
Personal beliefs towards depression	Group-related effect (medium effect size) No age effect

Sofronoff, K., Silva, J., & Beaumont, R. (2015). The secret agent society social-emotional skills program for children with a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: A parent-directed trial. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615583467

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available on request from the authors. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions.