Disclosure and Double Standards: A Mixed Methods Study of Self-Disclosure of Mental Illness or Addiction Among Medical Learners

Quantitative Arm (QUAN)

The inclusion criteria for participation in the quantitative survey was any current medical learner (medical student or resident) who had experience of a mental illness or addiction.

Quantitative data was collected using the Qualtrics online survey tool.¹⁵ Our survey consisted of several previously developed and psychometrically tested questionnaires.^16-18 Supplemental material shows the validated questionnaires used. ^16-18 We also included questions pertaining to substance use over the past one year from Statistics Canada. All continuous quantitative data were tested for assumptions of normality and where data was positively skewed, data was log transformed and geometric means were computed. Continuous data were analyzed using independent samples t-tests comparing mean scores and thus data for demographic variables was dichotomized. Effect sizes in the form of Cohen’s d were also computed to determine how meaningful the relationship between groups were.

Qualitative Arm (QUAL)

The inclusion criteria for the participation in the qualitative interview was any current medical learner (medical student or resident) who had self-disclosed their mental illness or addiction in training. Interview participants were recruited from survey participants by asking them to contact complete a form with their contact information should they choose to participate in the interview. In seeking a rich understanding of the factors that influence self-disclosure of mental illness or addiction for medical learners, we chose to inform the qualitative arm of our study with phenomenological inquiry as a methodology. Phenomenology, particularly hermeneutic phenomenology explores the meaning of lived experience and the contextual forces that shape an individual’s experiences.¹⁹ Phenomenological approaches have been utilized for similar explorations in related topics in medical education such as shame experiences²⁰, and microaggressions²¹ in clinical learning environments. A hermeneutic approach directs attention to an experience as it is lived, rather than how it is conceptualized. Hermeneutic phenomenology is suited to our research topic and emphasizes the limitations of “bracketing” for the research team.¹⁹ Our method of analysis of the qualitative data was informed by phenomenological approaches to analysis¹⁹. Such approaches allow researchers to reveal the deeper meanings of the experiences being studied and to identify the unique experiences of the participants perceptions of self disclosure of mental illness or addiction in medical education. During our analysis we openly reflected on, shared, and attended to subjectivity during an iterative process of data collection, reflection, reflexivity, and analysis.²²

We conducted qualitative analysis on both open comments in the survey and throughout the semi-structured interviews. Two investigators (J.S. and B.A.) developed a semi-structured discussion guide based on existing literature on self-disclosure. Questions focused on eliciting narratives of experience. We asked about each participant’s experience of disclosure including predisposing factors, motivations to disclosure, reactions from self, reactions from others, and perceived meaning of disclosure for their future career as a physician and/or educator. We scheduled interviews for 90 minutes to allow for deeper probing and reflection on participant experiences consistent with a phenomenological approach. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim as well as de-identified before analysis.

Data were analyzed in accordance with the tenets of hermeneutic phenomenological analysis described in the literature.^19,23 This approach identifies participants’ interpretations and first-order constructs which are subsequently integrated with the researcher’s second order constructs. Stages include immersion, understanding, abstraction, synthesis, illumination, and integration.¹⁹ Both J.S. and B.A. consensus coded the first several transcripts and then J.S. conducted independent coding which was discussed at regular intervals with other members of the team.

Barriers and Enablers

The most prominent barriers to disclosure included fear and stigma. Fear was perceived as fear of judgment from peers, and fear of retribution or career consequences from those with more structural power such as preceptors or organizations themselves. Among medical student participants, many shared their fears of appearing as though they were substandard or not up to par as learners or future physicians. For example, one medical student participant described a fear “that I’m going to be a bad doctor somehow,” and also realized that this was due to their internalization of views of what would be considered a good doctor (M1). Among resident participants, however, there was more of a fear of negative consequences for their career rather than a fear of judgment. Several resident participants cited fear of future licensure applications including a survey comment that there is “Not just a fear of retribution for disclosing but knowing this happens from watching classmates disclose their struggles…watching residency programs force residents to take mental health leave for either real mental health concerns or as a power tool to intimidate residents into doing what the program wants or the residents permanently has a record of taking mental health leave. Taking leave from residency, or being diagnosed with a mental health condition, or being on/ having ever received treatment can affect future licensing and license applications and it can lead to mental health exclusions in future critical illness or disability insurance.” Survey Participant 01

Another resident participant stated, “And so I think I had a lot of – it’s not really fear of retribution, but just really recognizing that requesting any sort of accommodations in work would really negatively affect my learning experience in residency. And affect my job prospects down the road, because I think it would be very quickly construed as laziness or just maybe the inability to kind of unable to hack it, which is a very common trope.” R2

In terms of enablers of disclosure, the most prominent enabler was when learners had a preceptor that demonstrated genuine and empathic understanding, was non-judgmental, and preceptors who role modeled vulnerability. Supportive peers were also considered an enabler, along with having reassurance of anonymity and inclusive and transparent policies that would help learners know what would happen if they disclosed. Overall, participants noted that access to resources and an open and safe learning environment where disclosure is normalized serves as an enabler.

Enablers to self-disclosure were perceived differently in relation to participants’ views of themselves versus how they were perceived by others. Many participants shared that before they could disclose to others, they needed to give themselves permission to self-disclose. The concept of ‘permission to self’ included overcoming an individual’s internalized fears of being weak, less-than, or somehow not worthy of their place in the profession. Participants described working towards self-acceptance and perceiving a sense of agency or self-efficacy before feeling prepared to disclose to others. In contrast, when it came to enablers from one’s environment, an individual’s perceived comfort, perceived support, and perceived closeness to their peers were prominent enablers. Participants tended to disclose more to peers who were similar to them, however, some disclosed to preceptors and others to their organization’s wellness or wellbeing offices. There were also a few instances of accidental disclosure which occurred when participants sought accommodations and disclosed to acquire support that they perceived as necessary from their institution.

Most participants described a precipitant to their disclosure. The precipitant varied whether it was among peers, to their preceptor, or to their institution. Across all situations, there was a need for some type of facilitation or mediation before disclosure was elicited. In some circumstances it was a supportive preceptor who facilitated disclosure through gentle or non-judgmental questioning, in others it could be peers who made the discloser comfortable by demonstrating support, openness, and trust. Ultimately, motivations to disclose included a desire to support learning or gain accommodation, but also to help others or to role model vulnerability.

Consequences of Disclosure

Generally, participants described feeling positive after disclosure. They felt better and more confident about themselves. They also felt a sense of validation from their peers, closeness, and camaraderie that made them feel validated after their disclosure. Participants also noted that they felt that disclosing would help make them a better physician, have more empathy for patients, and be a better educator.

Variation in the Disclosure Journey

Overall, we found that there was tremendous variation by context, perceived identity, and diagnosis. Most individuals described unique and individual disclosure journeys and experiences. Among our participants, several described how their diagnosis or diagnoses had a unique influence on how they experienced disclosure. For example, one participant stated that they were not sensitive about their ADHD diagnosis but were concerned about “stigma around a diagnosis of bipolar” M5, while another disclosed their bipolar disorder but were hesitant to disclose their obsessive-compulsive disorder diagnosis M8. There was also a clear distinction between disclosure of mental illness versus substance use challenges. One participant stated that self-disclosure of depression and anxiety is “less awkward” than “something like substance abuse” M7, and a resident participant noted that, “If you’re struggling with substance abuse, and you’re taking morphine from the cabinets, then I think there’d be a greater risk disclose to the college, because they’ll certainly take your license away versus disclosing that to a peer may you know, they might try to work with you and allow you to keep going and just in a safer way.” R2

The degree that an individual’s self-perception of being different from others also varied. For example, one medical student stated that they felt like an “outsider” in the system and that their experience as an outsider influences how they feel about themselves and their discomfort with disclosure. (M7). Similarly, another participant shared those men have “their own particular challenges” with disclosure that are unique to others (M8), and one described how they feel “disclosures about my depression is kind of akin to disclosures about my sexuality…they are definitely interrelated.” M2.

Disclosure, Double Standards, and Internalization of Self-Stigmatizing Beliefs

A finding across all codes, groups, and participants related to how disclosure was understood and experienced uniquely in the context of medical training. Participants described a sense of hypocrisy, double standards, or duplicity. Several noted that application processes seemed to seek students who were well rounded and that narratives of adversity were often anticipated, yet, their experiences in medical training were discordant to their expectations and their conceptualization of what would make a good physician. One participant described cultural norms in medicine by stating, “But, this happens so much in medicine. We, like, talk about illnesses as if no one in the room could possibly have it. Like we talk about diabetes with this assumption, like, no one has diabetes. We talk about hepatitis as if no one has or has ever gotten hepatitis. We talk about OCD in this case and compulsions as if no one has compulsions in the room.” M8

Table 4 provides additional quotes from our qualitative findings.

Overall Findings: The Journey from Fear to Confidence

Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative analysis suggests that disclosure was a complex process that appeared to become more challenging over time due to the internalization of negative attitudes about mental illness. OMS-HC scores showed resident physicians had more negative attitudes towards mental illness and disclosure. Overall findings also suggest that self-disclosure depended upon the degree of intersectional vulnerability of the learner’s identity and diagnosis. For example, the more intersections a learner’s identity encompassed, the more likely they perceived their self-disclosure of their mental illness or addition would be stigmatized. When looking at self-disclosure, people who identified as men had more negative attitudes than people who identified as women. Racialized learners scored higher on self-stigma. Qualitative data amongst participants with intersectional identities struggled in unique and varied ways not only according to other aspects of their identity such as gender and racialization, but also according to their perception of stigma related to their diagnosis. Quantitative estimates pertaining to substance use or addiction were unremarkable. Overall, findings suggested that disclosure journey was fraught with tensions, but ultimately lead to positive outcomes.