The research team set out to answer a deceptively simple question: what is it actually like to live with the stigma attached to multiple sclerosis? Quantitative surveys can measure how strongly people endorse statements about being devalued or discriminated against, but they cannot reveal the texture of those experiences, the moments in which stigma first appears, or the private strategies people devise to manage it. For that, the researchers turned to phenomenology, a philosophical and methodological tradition dedicated to describing human experience as it is lived rather than as it is measured. Phenomenological studies ask not how common an experience is, but what its essential structure is for the people who undergo it.

Specifically, the team employed Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological method, a seven-step analytical procedure widely used in nursing and health psychology research. In this approach, researchers read interview transcripts repeatedly to extract significant statements about the phenomenon under investigation, formulate meanings from those statements, and then cluster the formulated meanings into broader themes. The themes are subsequently organized into an exhaustive description of the experience, condensed into its fundamental structure, and finally validated by returning to participants to confirm that the account rings true to their lived reality. Throughout the process, the researchers bracketed their own assumptions, a practice rooted in phenomenology’s insistence that the investigator’s preconceptions must be set aside so that participants’ experiences can speak for themselves.

To ensure the study’s rigor, the authors applied the criteria established by Lincoln and Guba, the foundational framework for trustworthiness in qualitative research. These criteria, encompassing credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, serve as the qualitative analogue of validity and reliability in quantitative science. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling with maximum variation, a strategy deliberately designed to include individuals diverse in demographic and disease characteristics so that the resulting themes would reflect a broad spectrum of experience rather than a narrow slice of it. All participants provided written informed consent, and the study received ethical approval from the University of Isfahan under code IR.UI.REC.1399.082, with procedures conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.

The study’s participants were twenty individuals diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, recruited from neurology clinics affiliated with the University of Isfahan in Iran. Each took part in semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Semi-structured interviewing is a hallmark of qualitative health research because it combines a consistent thematic guide, ensuring that all participants address the core questions, with the flexibility to follow unexpected but meaningful threads as they emerge. In a phenomenon as intimate and socially sensitive as stigma, this flexibility matters: participants can describe the specific encounters, glances, and silences through which they first sensed that others saw them differently.

When the transcripts were analyzed according to Colaizzi’s method, three main themes emerged. The first was social isolation. Participants described experiences of discrimination and rejection, and a corrosive loss of self-worth that followed. Many reported that after their diagnosis, they came to be perceived as incapable or dependent, regardless of their actual functional abilities. This perception, in turn, led to reduced participation in social life and relationships that changed, often painfully, in character. The experience echoes a well-documented pattern in disability research in which the assumptions of others, sometimes more than the symptoms of the disease itself, determine how much a person can engage with the world.

The second theme captured the psychological and social consequences of stigma following the MS diagnosis. Participants spoke of uncertainty about the future, feelings of depression, and a persistent fear of judgment, rejection, and deepening disability. Multiple sclerosis is inherently unpredictable; relapses can occur without warning and the disease course varies enormously between individuals. The study suggests that stigma compounds this uncertainty by layering social threat on top of medical uncertainty. A person facing an unpredictable disease must simultaneously manage the fear of how family members, employers, and friends will react to each new symptom, each visible difficulty, each disclosure.

The third theme concerned the coping strategies participants developed to manage stigma. These fell into three recognizable patterns: concealing the illness, responding in self-destructive ways, and drawing on spirituality as a source of emotional support. Concealment, hiding a diagnosis from others to avoid being labeled, is a common response to stigmatized conditions, but it carries costs, including the loss of potential support and the psychological burden of maintaining secrecy. The identification of self-destructive responses among some participants underscores the severity of the emotional toll that stigma can exact. Spirituality, by contrast, emerged as a protective resource, providing participants with a framework of meaning and emotional comfort in a cultural context where religious faith is deeply woven into daily life.

The authors conclude that social stigma represents a substantial psychosocial burden for people with multiple sclerosis, one that influences identity, emotional health, relationships, and adaptation to the illness. Their recommendation is that MS care should not stop at immunomodulatory drugs and symptom management. Instead, they argue, clinical care should incorporate systematic stigma assessment, psychological interventions, family education, and social support programs designed to reduce the consequences of stigma and improve quality of life. This aligns with a broader shift in chronic disease management toward biopsychosocial models, which treat social context as a genuine determinant of health outcomes rather than a background variable.

What makes this study notable is its grounding in the Iranian cultural context, where qualitative evidence on stigma in multiple sclerosis had been limited. Stigma is never culture-free; the meanings attached to chronic illness, the expectations placed on patients, and the available sources of solace all vary across societies. By documenting how stigma is experienced and interpreted in a specific cultural setting, the research provides a foundation for interventions that are attuned to local realities rather than imported wholesale from other contexts. For the millions of people worldwide living with multiple sclerosis, the message is clear: the disease attacks the nervous system, but its social echoes can reach nearly every corner of a life, and recognizing that hidden burden is the first step toward easing it.

Subject of Research: Lived experiences of social stigma among individuals with multiple sclerosis

Article Title: The lived experiences of social stigma among individuals with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative phenomenological study using Colaizzi’s method

Article References: Harooni Jamalooei, Y., Esmaeili, M., Abedi, A., & Najafi, M. R. (2026). The lived experiences of social stigma among individuals with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative phenomenological study using Colaizzi’s method. BMC Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05741-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40359-026-05741-6

Keywords: multiple sclerosis, social stigma, internalized stigma, phenomenology, Colaizzi method, qualitative research, lived experience, psychosocial burden, social isolation, coping strategies, Iran, BMC Psychology

The team used a descriptive phenomenological approach, a method designed to capture the essence of lived experience as participants themselves describe it. Between October 2024 and May 2025, the researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with twelve adults, six women and six men aged 22 to 41, recruited from six specialized mental health clinics in Kerman. Every participant met DSM-5 criteria for bipolar disorder, had experienced at least two mood episodes requiring treatment, and was in remission at the time of the study. The interviews were analyzed using Colaizzi’s seven-step method, a rigorous qualitative framework that moves from reading raw transcripts to extracting significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, and finally describing the fundamental structure of the phenomenon. Saturation, the point at which no new information emerges, was assessed through team discussions based on code repetition across consecutive interviews.

Four major themes emerged from the analysis. The first describes the psychosocial process of adaptation, a trajectory that begins with denial of the diagnosis, passes through a difficult period of acceptance, and can end in what the authors call legitimation, the point at which a person comes to see their condition as a legitimate part of their identity rather than a shameful secret. This progression is not automatic or linear. Participants described oscillating between acknowledging their illness and pushing it out of awareness, a dynamic that directly affected whether they sought care, stayed on medication, and disclosed their diagnosis to others.

The second theme concerns the individual meaning-making structures through which participants explained why they had become ill. The researchers identified three distinct types of attribution: moral, supernatural, and contextual. Some participants framed their disorder in moral terms, as the consequence of personal failings or wrongdoing, a framing that carried heavy self-blame. Others reached for supernatural explanations, reflecting cultural and religious frameworks in which affliction can be understood as spiritual in origin. Still others offered contextual accounts, locating the cause of their illness in life circumstances, stress, and social conditions. These explanatory models matter clinically, because what a person believes caused their disorder shapes what they think will cure it, and whether a mood stabilizer seems like a rational answer at all.

The third theme, conflict with the treatment system and society, captures the ambivalence many participants felt toward psychiatric medication and the pressure they experienced toward what the authors describe as forced normalization. Ambivalence toward medication is a well-documented phenomenon in bipolar disorder research, but here it acquired a distinctive cultural texture. Participants weighed the benefits of pharmacological stability against concerns about dependency, side effects, and the social meaning of taking psychiatric drugs in a community where mental illness is heavily stigmatized. Forced normalization refers to the societal expectation that patients should appear normal, conceal their condition, and conform to social norms, regardless of their actual wellbeing. The pressure to perform normality, the study suggests, can itself become a barrier to honest engagement with treatment.

The fourth theme maps the context of interpersonal and social relationships, and it is here that the study delivers some of its most striking findings. Family emerged as a double-edged institution, simultaneously the most important source of support and a significant source of restriction. In collectivistic settings such as southeastern Iran, the family is the primary safety net for people with chronic illness, monitoring medication, accompanying patients to clinics, and providing economic and emotional backing. Yet the same closeness enables surveillance and control. Participants described family members who restricted their autonomy, made decisions on their behalf, and treated the diagnosis as a family secret to be guarded rather than an illness to be managed openly. The paradox of support and control, the authors argue, is a defining feature of the lived experience of bipolar disorder in this context.

Gendered pressures added another layer of complexity. Women and men encountered different expectations about how their illness should be expressed, concealed, and accommodated, and these expectations shaped their social functioning and their willingness to disclose. The study also found that participants’ support networks were fragile, often limited to immediate family and vulnerable to rupture. Because stigma operates at the level of the family as well as the individual, a diagnosis could affect marriage prospects, family reputation, and social standing, giving relatives strong incentives to enforce concealment. The result is a support system that is indispensable and constraining at the same time.

Running through all four themes, the researchers identified a single fundamental structure that unifies the lived experience of their participants: a continuous dialectical tension between acceptance and concealment, the paradox of support and control, and the interplay between individual agency and social structure. Patients are constantly negotiating how much of themselves to reveal, to whom, and under what conditions. Social stigma, the authors conclude, is the central and pervasive force that binds these tensions together, shaping participants’ identities, their relationships, and their engagement with treatment. Stigma is not an external add-on to the illness experience in this setting; it is woven into every decision about medication, disclosure, marriage, work, and friendship.

The clinical implications are significant. The authors argue that interventions in this context must be culturally sensitive, targeting stigma reduction, family education, and structured support systems rather than the individual patient alone. Because families function as both caregivers and gatekeepers, educating relatives about the nature of bipolar disorder could transform them from instruments of concealment into partners in care. Because explanatory models are moral and supernatural as well as biomedical, effective treatment engagement requires clinicians to understand and work with patients’ own causal beliefs rather than dismissing them. The study’s authors call for future models of care that integrate biomedical approaches with community-based mechanisms tailored to the cultural realities of southeastern Iran, a region where specialized mental health resources are concentrated in urban clinics and where the social costs of a psychiatric label remain high.

For the international research community, the study is a reminder that bipolar disorder is never experienced in a cultural vacuum. Most of what psychiatry knows about illness perceptions and treatment adherence comes from Western, individualistic societies, where the dominant model assumes an autonomous patient making independent decisions about care. This research from Kerman shows what happens when that assumption fails: the patient is embedded in a family and community whose interests, fears, and reputations are entangled with the illness itself. Understanding recovery in such settings means understanding the dialectic the researchers describe, in which every step toward acceptance is shadowed by the pull of concealment, and every offer of support carries the possibility of control. The twelve voices captured in this study suggest that improving outcomes for people with bipolar disorder in collectivistic cultures will depend less on new medications than on changing the social conditions under which the illness is lived.

Subject of Research: Illness perceptions, treatment attitudes, and social relationships among adults with bipolar disorder in southeastern Iran

Article Title: Illness perceptions, treatment attitudes, and social relationships among clinic-attending adults with bipolar disorder in Kerman, Iran: a qualitative study

Article References: Garrusi, B., Garousi, S., & Raaii, F. (2026). Illness perceptions, treatment attitudes, and social relationships among clinic-attending adults with bipolar disorder in Kerman, Iran: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-026-08722-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08722-6

Keywords: bipolar disorder, qualitative research, illness perceptions, social stigma, cultural psychiatry, Iran, family relationships, treatment attitudes, phenomenology, mental health, collectivism, medication adherence

The SATA scale was originally developed by Flood, Bulgrin, and Morgan in 2013 as a tool to capture public perceptions of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a prevalent neurodevelopmental condition characterized by differences in social communication and restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior and interest. Unlike instruments aimed at clinicians or teachers, the SATA was designed to probe the attitudes of ordinary members of society, making it uniquely suited to studying the stigma that surrounds autism in everyday life. Stigma is not a cosmetic problem. Decades of research, including work summarized in the grand challenges of global mental health published in Nature, have documented that social stigma attached to mental and neurodevelopmental conditions delays diagnosis, discourages families from seeking services, and degrades the mental health of affected individuals and their caregivers.

For autistic people and their families, the consequences of negative societal attitudes are concrete and measurable. Systematic reviews have catalogued experiences of bullying, exclusion, concealment, and camouflaging among autistic adults, along with affiliate stigma, the internalized shame that family members absorb from their communities. In Iran specifically, prior studies have found gaps in public awareness of autism and documented stigma-related barriers within the mental health system itself. Yet measuring attitudes accurately requires more than goodwill; it requires an instrument that behaves statistically the same way in Persian as it does in the language and culture where it was born. That is precisely the problem the new study set out to solve.

The research team, led by Maryam Salamat with Parviz Fadakar Gabalou and Mohammad Rostami, conducted a cross-sectional psychometric study in which participants completed both the translated SATA scale and the Compassion Scale, a validated measure of compassion for others. The translation and adaptation followed established cross-cultural procedures, and content validity was evaluated using quantitative methods rooted in Lawshe’s classic approach to content validity assessment. Data were analyzed with SPSS 25 and R 4.3.3, combining classical statistical software with the modern open-source environment favored for structural equation modeling.

The centerpiece of the analysis was confirmatory factor analysis, a technique that tests whether the pattern of correlations among questionnaire items matches the structure predicted by theory. In the original English SATA, a defined set of items captures societal attitudes toward autism as a coherent construct. The Persian data told a slightly different story: three items, specifically items 5, 11, and 12, did not cohere with the rest and were removed. What remained was a 13-item Persian version whose confirmatory factor model demonstrated excellent fit to the data. In practical terms, excellent fit means the observed responses can be described by the hypothesized attitude structure without substantial residual mismatch, giving researchers confidence that the scale measures the same underlying construct in Iranian samples.

Reliability, the second pillar of psychometric soundness, was also confirmed. The researchers reported good internal consistency, meaning the items of the scale correlate with one another strongly enough that the total score provides a dependable summary of a respondent’s attitude. The team paid attention to modern methodological debates in reliability estimation, drawing on the literature arguing for omega coefficients over the traditional Cronbach’s alpha where appropriate, a detail that reflects the increasing statistical sophistication of cross-cultural validation studies. A scale that is unreliable cannot detect real differences between groups, no matter how elegant its theory, so this result is foundational for every future use of the Persian SATA.

Convergent validity was established through a positive correlation with the Compassion Scale. This is a theoretically meaningful link: compassion, defined as the sensitivity to suffering combined with the motivation to alleviate it, has been shown in prior research to relate to reduced negative outgroup attitudes. Studies of compassion-focused interventions and of compassion-based approaches to reducing mental illness stigma suggested that people higher in trait compassion should hold more accepting views of autistic people, and the positive association observed in the Iranian sample confirms that the SATA is capturing genuine attitude variance rather than statistical noise. The correlation also hints at a possible intervention pathway, since compassion can be cultivated through training.

The demographic findings are where the study becomes genuinely striking for a general audience. Women reported significantly more positive attitudes toward autism than men. This pattern echoes a broad body of research on gender and empathy, including neuroscience reviews documenting reliable sex-related differences in empathic responding, as well as studies of gendered stereotypes showing that socialization into caregiving norms shapes how people respond to vulnerability. Meanwhile, attitudes also varied systematically by the level of contact participants had with autistic individuals. This result is a direct real-world confirmation of the contact hypothesis, the intergroup theory first articulated by Gordon Allport in 1954 and confirmed in a landmark meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp: under appropriate conditions, direct contact with members of a stigmatized group reduces prejudice.

The implications for Iran and for other low- and middle-income countries are substantial. Autism prevalence estimates worldwide have risen with broadened diagnostic criteria and improved recognition, and the World Health Organization now emphasizes autism as a global public health priority. Yet diagnostic and support infrastructure lags far behind in many regions, and stigma compounds the shortfall by deterring families from early screening and intervention. Iranian studies have documented late diagnoses, limited public knowledge, and caregiver stigma, including among parents who report reduced quality of life linked to affiliate stigma. A validated Persian SATA gives Iranian researchers, universities, and health planners a dependable yardstick for the first time to measure where attitudes stand, to identify which populations hold the most stigmatizing views, and to evaluate whether campaigns and curricula actually change minds.

The authors’ conclusion points squarely at targeted educational and experiential interventions, and the international evidence supports that direction. Online training programs for college students have been shown to increase knowledge of autism and decrease stigma, and brief educational interventions have improved children’s behavioral intentions toward autistic peers. Because the new study found that both gender and contact predict attitudes, the most efficient programs may combine factual education with structured opportunities for meaningful interaction with autistic people, rather than relying on information alone. University campuses, where future teachers, nurses, psychologists, and engineers form their lifelong social attitudes, are an ideal setting for such work. With a psychometrically sound 13-item Persian SATA now available, Iranian institutions can finally measure their progress with confidence, and researchers across the Persian-speaking world gain a tool whose statistical credentials have been tested against the demanding standards of modern confirmatory factor analysis.

Subject of Research: Validation of the Persian Societal Attitudes Towards Autism scale and its associations with gender, contact, and compassion among Iranian university students

Article Title: Properties of the Persian Version of the Societal Attitudes Towards Autism (SATA) Scale Among Iranian University Students

Article References: Properties of the Persian Version of the Societal Attitudes Towards Autism (SATA) Scale Among Iranian University Students. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07473-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10803-026-07473-3

Keywords: autism spectrum disorder, SATA scale, psychometric validation, social stigma, Iranian university students, confirmatory factor analysis, compassion, gender differences, intergroup contact, cross-cultural adaptation, internal consistency, convergent validity

The research team, led by Hui-zhen Huang of Huzhou University and colleagues at institutions including Peking University and Harbin Medical University, recruited participants purposefully from a specialist psychiatric hospital in Zhejiang province. Between January and March 2025, the researchers conducted face-to-face, semi-structured interviews designed to elicit rich first-person accounts of the experience of violence. Rather than measuring aggression with rating scales or inferring causes from statistical correlations, the team asked patients to reconstruct the arc of their own violent episodes, from the earliest flickers of distress to the aftermath. The interviews were then analyzed using Colaizzi’s seven-step method, a rigorous framework for phenomenological analysis, with the support of NVivo 12 qualitative data software.

From this analysis, three major themes emerged, each with three subthemes, forming a nine-part map of the violent experience. The first theme concerns the contributors to violent behaviors, which the researchers grouped into positive symptoms coupled with poor medication adherence, adverse family environments and social discrimination, and stressful life events. The second theme traces the evolution of emotions and behaviors during the violent process itself, moving through an accumulation of negative emotions, an experience of losing control, and finally emotional reflection once the episode has passed. The third theme captures what patients say they need for violence prevention and management: improved pharmacological and psychological treatment, stronger family and social support, and non-coercive, person-centered care.

The first contributor, positive symptoms and poor medication adherence, aligns with decades of clinical observation. Positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including hallucinations and delusions, can distort a patient’s perception of threat. A voice commanding aggression or a delusional belief that a family member intends harm can transform an ordinary interaction into something terrifying. Crucially, the patients in this study linked these symptoms to the moments when they had stopped taking their medication. When antipsychotic treatment lapsed, the symptoms that had been held in check could resurface, and with them the risk that a misperceived threat would be met with a defensive or retaliatory act. The finding underscores a practical point that clinicians have long emphasized but that health systems often fail to support: continuity of treatment is one of the most direct levers for reducing violence risk in this population.

Equally striking was the weight the participants placed on their social worlds. Adverse family environments, characterized by high levels of expressed emotion, criticism, hostility, or conflict, emerged as a powerful contributor, as did social discrimination. Patients described how stigma and rejection from neighbors, employers, and even relatives chipped away at their sense of dignity and safety, creating a chronic background of grievance and hypervigilance. Stressful life events, such as financial pressure, loss, or interpersonal conflict, could then act as the spark that ignited this accumulated tension. In other words, violence in schizophrenia was not portrayed as an internal malfunction alone, but as a transaction between a vulnerable brain and an often unforgiving environment. This framing moves the conversation away from a purely biomedical account and toward an ecological one, in which family dynamics and societal attitudes are recognized as genuine risk factors rather than mere background noise.

The second theme offers perhaps the most original contribution of the study: a phenomenological anatomy of the violent episode itself. Participants described a recognizable sequence. It began with an accumulation of negative emotions, a slow build-up of anger, anxiety, resentment, or fear that had no outlet. Patients compared this to a pressure steadily rising, with warning signs such as restlessness, racing thoughts, and irritability that those around them frequently failed to notice. Then came the experience of being out of control, a state in which the impulse to act seemed to detach from deliberate choice. Several participants described a feeling of watching themselves act, of words and blows erupting before reflection could intervene. This subjective account of impaired impulse control is consistent with neuroscientific models in which prefrontal regulatory systems fail to inhibit limbic-driven aggressive responses under conditions of high emotional arousal, but hearing it described from the inside gives the clinical concept an urgency that scales and questionnaires cannot convey.

Importantly, the sequence did not end with the outburst. The third subtheme, emotional reflection, describes what happened afterward: guilt, shame, remorse, and a painful reckoning with the harm done to people the patients cared about. Far from being indifferent to their violence, participants often ruminated on it, and this reflective capacity represents a genuine clinical resource. A patient who can recognize the build-up phase, and who feels motivated by remorse to avoid repetition, is a patient who can be engaged in relapse-prevention planning, anger regulation training, and honest conversations about early warning signs. The study suggests that interventions should target this reflective window, teaching patients to identify the physiological and emotional signatures of the accumulation phase before control is lost.

The third theme translates these insights into a set of demands from the patients themselves. On the treatment front, participants called for improved pharmacological management to keep positive symptoms suppressed, combined with psychological therapies that address emotional regulation, coping skills, and the processing of traumatic or humiliating experiences. On the support front, they emphasized the need for family education and social inclusion, arguing that relatives who understand the illness are less likely to escalate conflicts and more likely to notice early warning signs, and that communities that accept rather than ostracize patients remove one of the chronic stressors feeding the cycle. These are not abstract aspirations; they map directly onto evidence-based practices such as family psychoeducation and assertive community treatment, which have repeatedly been shown to improve adherence and reduce relapse.

Perhaps the most politically resonant finding is the patients’ call for non-coercive and person-centered care. Many participants had experienced seclusion, restraint, or forced medication, and they described these interventions not as protection but as humiliation that deepened their distrust of the mental health system and, in some cases, intensified the very emotions that preceded violence. The study’s authors argue that effective violence prevention requires a comprehensive, person-centered approach that integrates symptom management, emotional support, and family and social resources while explicitly avoiding coercive practices. This is a challenge to psychiatric institutions worldwide, where coercive measures remain routine despite growing evidence of their psychological costs. A system that treats patients as partners in risk management, rather than as risks to be contained, may find that cooperation replaces resistance.

The broader significance of this study lies in what it does to a destructive stereotype. Population studies consistently show that the vast majority of people with schizophrenia are never violent, and that they are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Yet the sensational cases that dominate headlines have allowed fear to substitute for understanding. By documenting the subjective architecture of violent episodes, from the slow accumulation of distress to the loss of control and the remorse that follows, this research replaces a caricature with a process, and processes can be interrupted. Every stage the patients described represents a potential intervention point: medication support to quiet threatening symptoms, family and community change to reduce chronic stress, early recognition of emotional build-up, and humane, collaborative care that preserves dignity. The message from these fifteen patients is ultimately one of cautious hope. Violence in schizophrenia, they say, is not an inexplicable impulse but a comprehensible human event with recognizable warning signs, and comprehensible events are ones that clinicians, families, and societies can learn to prevent.

Subject of Research: Phenomenological study of the lived experiences of violent behaviors in individuals with schizophrenia

Article Title: Misunderstood impulses: a phenomenological exploration of the experiences of violent behaviors in individuals with schizophrenia

Article References: Huang, H.-Z., Wang, X.-Q., Feng, Y., Chen, Y.-B., Zhang, S.-X., Lu, M.-L., Dong, J.-H., & Zhou, Y.-Q. (2026). Misunderstood impulses: a phenomenological exploration of the experiences of violent behaviors in individuals with schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-026-08650-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08650-5

Keywords: schizophrenia, violent behavior, qualitative research, phenomenology, medication adherence, expressed emotion, social stigma, impulse control, person-centered care, violence prevention, psychiatry, BMC Psychiatry