Is “Neurotic” Offensive? Stigma, Everyday Use, and Better Mental Health Language
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Yes, “neurotic” can be offensive or stigmatizing, especially when it is used as a global label for a person, as an insult, or as shorthand for mental illness. But the word is not automatically offensive in every context. People still use it casually, including about themselves, to mean worried, tense, overthinking, self-critical, emotionally reactive, or unusually preoccupied with something. The practical problem is that the word is vague: it can describe many different experiences while sounding more clinical than it really is.
In contemporary mental-health communication, the clearest approach is usually to replace “neurotic” with the specific behavior, feeling, or concern you actually mean. “I’m worried about making a mistake,” “she keeps asking for reassurance,” “he becomes very tense when plans change,” or “we keep getting stuck in repeated checking” communicates more information than “I’m neurotic,” “she is neurotic,” or “he has neurotic behavior.” Precise language also reduces the risk of turning an ordinary stress response, a personality tendency, a symptom, or a relationship problem into an amateur diagnosis.
This article treats “neurotic” as an everyday word and a language question. For the broader meaning of the word, see What Does Neurotic Mean? Everyday Meaning, Psychology, and Why the Term Can Mislead. For the broad person-label, see What Is a Neurotic Person? Meaning, Traits, Behavior, and Modern Psychology.
Is “Neurotic” Offensive? The Short Answer
Whether “neurotic” is offensive depends on who is using it, whom it is aimed at, what it is supposed to mean, the relationship between the people involved, and whether it is being used descriptively, jokingly, self-referentially, clinically, or as a put-down. A person can reasonably dislike the word even when the speaker intended no insult. Intent matters, and so does impact.
Three questions are often collapsed into one. First, is the word offensive to a particular person? That is partly a question of context and personal preference. Second, can the word be stigmatizing? Yes, especially when it reduces someone to a negative mental-health stereotype or implies that their reactions are irrational because of who they are. Third, is it clinically precise? Usually not. “Neurotic” does not identify a modern diagnosis and does not tell us which psychological process is actually present.
The current everyday meaning remains visible in standard dictionaries. Cambridge Dictionary records uses involving anxious, worried, or unusual behavior. A dictionary documents how a word is used; it does not establish a diagnosis, a personality score, or the psychological cause of the behavior.
Offensive, Stigmatizing, Outdated, and Imprecise Are Different Claims
Mental-health language becomes confusing when different criticisms are treated as synonyms. A term can be familiar but imprecise. It can be historically important but unsuitable as a current diagnosis. It can be acceptable in one conversation and unwelcome in another. It can also be used in a way that reinforces stigma even if the speaker does not intend to discriminate.
Offensive
Calling a word offensive means that it can insult, demean, belittle, or violate a person’s preferred way of being described. That judgment is relational and contextual. “I’m being neurotic about this deadline” may be light self-description. “You’re a neurotic” said during conflict can function as a personal attack. The same sequence of letters does not carry exactly the same social meaning in both situations.
Stigmatizing
Stigma is broader than hurt feelings. Mental-health stigma can involve stereotyping, social devaluation, separation, exclusion, and discrimination. Large reviews and international work on mental-health stigma show that stigma is associated with meaningful social and health consequences. The Lancet Commission on ending stigma and discrimination in mental health treats stigma and discrimination as major barriers to full participation and care, while a 2025 systematic scoping review by Kågström and colleagues synthesizes evidence linking mental-health stigma with adverse outcomes across multiple domains.
Using “neurotic” can participate in stigma when it implies that a person is fundamentally defective, irrational, unstable, or less credible because of a mental-health stereotype. The risk is especially clear when the label is used to dismiss a person’s concerns rather than engage with the content of what they are saying.
Outdated
A word can remain common in everyday speech after losing a precise role in current clinical classification. “Neurotic” belongs partly to that history. Historical psychiatry and psychoanalytic traditions used neurotic and neurosis in technical ways that changed across schools and eras. Modern everyday speech preserved the adjective, but its casual meaning no longer maps cleanly onto one clinical category. The historical story belongs to the separate Neurosis cluster; here the relevant point is that current colloquial use should not be mistaken for current diagnosis.
Clinically imprecise
Modern diagnosis is organized around defined diagnostic categories and requirements, not a global judgment that someone is “neurotic.” The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR overview describes a formal diagnostic classification and criteria sets, while the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements provides a standardized diagnostic framework for mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. “Neurotic person” and “neurotic behavior” are not stand-alone diagnoses in contemporary clinical practice.
Why Calling a Person “Neurotic” Can Land Badly
It turns a behavior into a person
There is a meaningful difference between describing a behavior and naming a person by a label. “You checked the door five times because you were worried it was unlocked” describes an observable sequence. “You’re neurotic” converts that sequence into a global statement about identity. The global label can make a temporary state sound like a permanent personal defect.
This distinction also matters scientifically. A person can worry intensely during one stressful period without having a stable personality trait. A person can seek reassurance in one relationship without doing so across their life. Someone can repeatedly check because of ordinary uncertainty, learned habits, perfectionistic concern, a specific anxiety problem, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, trauma-related vigilance, or other reasons. The surface behavior alone does not establish which explanation is correct.
It can sound clinical without actually being clinical
Everyday psychological words often borrow authority from clinical language. “Neurotic” can sound as though it names a recognized condition even when the speaker is simply expressing irritation. That can give a casual judgment more weight than it deserves. The problem becomes sharper when the word is used in a workplace, family dispute, school, healthcare setting, or relationship conflict where one person has more power than another.
If you are trying to understand the behavior itself, the better route is to move from the label to the observable pattern. The English Hub article Neurotic Behavior: Meaning, Examples, and What It Does Not Diagnose explains how worry, repeated checking, reassurance seeking, avoidance, emotional reactivity, control, or self-criticism can be described without treating “neurotic behavior” as a diagnosis.
It can be used to dismiss legitimate emotion
Sometimes “neurotic” does not describe a psychological pattern at all. It is simply a way of saying, “I think your reaction is too much.” In that use, the word can shut down a conversation about what happened. A partner who raises a real trust concern, an employee who points out an unsafe process, or a patient who asks a reasonable question can be called neurotic even when the issue deserves attention.
A useful test is to remove the label and see whether there is still a concrete claim. Instead of “you’re being neurotic,” say what you observe: “You have asked me the same question four times,” “you seem very worried about this possibility,” “we have changed the plan three times because the uncertainty feels hard,” or “I feel pressured when you ask for immediate reassurance.” Specificity makes disagreement possible without turning disagreement into a verdict on the other person’s personality.
It can connect distress with shame
Mental-health stigma can discourage disclosure and help-seeking. In a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, Clement and colleagues found that mental-health-related stigma was a meaningful barrier to seeking help, although effects varied across populations and forms of stigma. That evidence is about mental-health stigma broadly, not about the word “neurotic” specifically. It supports a general reason to avoid language that adds shame to distress.
What the Research Says About Labels and Stigma
There is a tempting but overly simple story in which every psychiatric or psychological label always increases stigma. Research does not support such a universal rule. Labels can sometimes intensify negative reactions, sometimes reduce blame by providing an explanation, and sometimes have little measurable effect. The result depends on the label, symptoms, context, audience, and outcome being studied.
A systematic review by O’Connor and colleagues examined 22 experimental vignette studies of diagnostic labeling. Across studies, diagnostic disclosure sometimes exacerbated stigma, sometimes mitigated it, and sometimes had no effect. The authors concluded that labeling effects are complex and differ across diagnostic categories and social contexts.
That finding is important for the present question because “neurotic” is even less standardized than a formal diagnosis. There is no strong evidence base showing that this specific everyday word produces one fixed psychological effect in every audience. Claims such as “the word is always harmless” and “the word is always abusive” both go beyond the available evidence.
Research on terminology preferences also cautions against universal prescriptions. A systematic review by Dickens and Picchioni found that evidence about preferred terms for people using mental-health services was methodologically weak and difficult to generalize. This does not mean language is unimportant. It means good communication requires attention to context, evidence, and the preferences of the person being described.
That principle is consistent with the American Psychological Association’s Inclusive Language Guide, which emphasizes respectful language, avoidance of reductive or stigmatizing terminology, and attention to people’s expressed preferences. The guide also distinguishes person-first and identity-first choices and makes clear that the individual’s preference can supersede a generic style rule.
“Neurotic” Is Not a Modern Diagnosis
Calling someone neurotic does not diagnose anything. It does not establish an anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depressive disorder, personality disorder, trauma-related condition, or any other clinical disorder. It also does not establish that the person has high neuroticism, a measured personality trait.
Diagnosis requires more than recognizing a familiar behavior. Clinicians consider the form of symptoms, duration, severity, context, functional impairment, developmental and medical factors, differential diagnoses, substance or medication effects where relevant, and the person’s broader history. A casual label contains none of that information.
The same rule applies to self-labeling. If you have been asking yourself whether you are neurotic, Am I Neurotic? How to Understand the Label Without Self-Diagnosing provides a framework for translating the label into specific questions about worry, reactivity, avoidance, reassurance, self-criticism, and impairment without turning the word into a diagnosis.
Neurotic, Neuroticism, and Neurosis Are Not the Same Thing
Neurotic: an everyday label
In current everyday speech, “neurotic” is an unstandardized adjective or person-label. Depending on the speaker, it can mean worried, high-strung, emotionally reactive, overthinking, perfectionistic, controlling, insecure, preoccupied, or simply difficult. Because the range is so broad, the label has low explanatory value unless the speaker says what they actually mean.
Neuroticism: a measurable personality trait
Neuroticism is a personality-science construct measured on a continuum. It is not a diagnosis. A person can score higher or lower on a validated neuroticism measure, and population research can examine associations involving the trait. That evidence should not be automatically transferred to a person whom a friend, partner, coworker, or stranger casually calls “neurotic.” The everyday label is not a personality test.
Neurosis: a historical and theory-dependent clinical concept
Neurosis has a long history in psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and clinical theory. Its meaning changed over time and across traditions. Modern classifications reorganized many conditions that were historically grouped under neurotic or neurosis language. This article does not retell that diagnostic genealogy because it belongs to the dedicated Neurosis cluster.
When Is “Neurotic” Most Likely to Be Stigmatizing?
When it is used as a noun for the whole person
“She is a neurotic” is more person-reducing than “she seems very worried about this.” The noun makes the label sound like the person’s defining category. Even when the speaker has noticed a real pattern, the phrasing invites an identity judgment rather than a discussion of what is happening.
When it is used to imply mental illness as an insult
The risk increases when “neurotic” is paired with words such as “crazy,” “unstable,” “insane,” or “mental” to discredit someone. Those formulations move from description toward social devaluation. APA inclusive-language guidance explicitly recommends avoiding stigmatizing mental-health descriptors such as “crazy” and “insane” and using more precise, respectful language.
When it replaces evidence in a conflict
A label should not substitute for an argument. “You are neurotic, so your concern does not count” is not a psychological assessment. It is a rhetorical shortcut. The same is true when a manager labels an employee, a parent labels a child, or a partner labels the other partner instead of addressing a concrete behavior or problem.
When the person has asked you not to use it
Once someone has clearly said that they find a mental-health label demeaning or inaccurate, continuing to use it changes the context. The issue is no longer uncertainty about terminology; it is disregard for a stated preference. Respectful communication does not require agreement about every interpretation, but it does require taking the other person’s preferred description seriously.
When the Word May Be Less Problematic
Self-description
People often use “I’m being neurotic” as shorthand for temporary overthinking, overchecking, or worrying. Self-description changes the interpersonal dynamics because the speaker is choosing the word for themselves. Even then, it can be useful to ask whether the label clarifies anything. “I’m nervous about the interview and keep checking my notes” may be kinder and more informative than turning anxiety into a negative identity.
Humor between people who share the meaning
Friends, partners, or colleagues sometimes use playful language that everyone involved accepts. Shared humor can reduce tension rather than create stigma. The important point is that mutual comfort cannot be assumed from the speaker’s intention alone. A joke that depends on mental illness as a punchline can still alienate someone who does not share the frame.
Historical or academic discussion
The word is legitimate when discussing historical texts, historical diagnoses, psychoanalytic theory, or the evolution of psychological terminology. In those settings, clarity comes from identifying the historical framework rather than silently importing an old term into current diagnosis.
Better Mental-Health Language: Say What You Mean
There is no single perfect replacement for “neurotic” because the word itself covers too many different meanings. The best alternative depends on the pattern you are trying to describe. Replacing one vague label with another vague label does not solve the problem.
If you mean worry
Use “worried,” “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “preoccupied,” or “having repeated worry about…” depending on the situation. Ordinary anxiety is a human state. An anxiety disorder is a clinical diagnosis. The adjective “anxious” does not automatically establish the disorder.
If you mean overthinking
Describe the process: “keeps revisiting the same possibility,” “has difficulty letting the decision rest,” “replays the conversation repeatedly,” or “spends a lot of time imagining what could go wrong.” Overthinking is itself an everyday term, but it is more behaviorally informative than a whole-person label.
If you mean reassurance seeking
Say that the person repeatedly asks for confirmation, certainty, or reassurance. Reassurance seeking can occur in ordinary stress and in several psychological contexts. In obsessive-compulsive disorder it can sometimes function as a compulsion, but repeated reassurance by itself does not diagnose OCD.
If you mean checking or control
Name the observable action: repeated checking, difficulty delegating, frequent plan changes, insistence on certainty, repeated approval requests, or attempts to control details. These behaviors can have many possible explanations. Describing them precisely makes it possible to discuss impact and boundaries without inventing a diagnosis.
If you mean emotional reactivity
Use language such as “becomes upset quickly in this situation,” “reacts strongly to criticism,” “seems tense under uncertainty,” or “has difficulty settling after conflict.” Emotional intensity can be a state, a recurring pattern, a personality tendency, a response to stress, or part of a clinical problem. The pattern requires context.
If you mean perfectionistic concern
Distinguish high standards from distressing perfectionistic concern. “She revises the report repeatedly because mistakes feel unacceptable” is more precise than “she is neurotic about work.” Perfectionism is its own psychological territory and should not be reduced to the neurotic label.
If you mean insecurity or jealousy
Say what the insecurity or jealousy looks like: fear of rejection, repeated checking of a partner’s commitment, suspicion, comparisons, requests for reassurance, or difficulty tolerating ambiguity. Attachment patterns, jealousy, trust, relationship uncertainty, and obsessive-compulsive processes each have their own evidence bases. The word “neurotic” cannot tell you which one is operating.
If you mean self-criticism
Describe the internal pattern: harsh self-evaluation, rumination after mistakes, persistent guilt, shame, or difficulty accepting “good enough.” Self-criticism can accompany many states and conditions, and it can also occur without a mental disorder.
How to Replace the Label in Real Conversations
The most useful replacement is usually a three-part statement: observation, impact, and question or request. This keeps the conversation anchored in what actually happened.
Instead of “You’re being neurotic about the trip,” try: “We have checked the booking three times tonight, and I can see you’re still worried something will go wrong. What information would actually help you feel ready?”
Instead of “Stop being neurotic,” try: “We keep returning to the same possibility even though we do not have new information. Do you want to decide what we can verify now and what uncertainty we will have to leave unresolved?”
Instead of “My partner is neurotic,” try: “My partner asks me several times a day whether I still love them, and I feel exhausted by having to answer the same question. I want to respond with care while setting a limit on repeated reassurance.”
Instead of “My boss is neurotic,” try: “My manager rechecks minor decisions, changes instructions when uncertainty rises, and requires approval for details that were previously delegated. It is slowing the work and making responsibilities unclear.”
This style does not force you to agree that every concern is reasonable. It simply moves the conversation from identity judgment to observable pattern, consequences, and possible next steps.
What If Someone Calls You Neurotic?
You do not have to accept the label as a psychological fact. Ask what the person means. “What behavior are you referring to?” is often more useful than arguing about the word itself. The answer may reveal a concrete issue you want to address, an ordinary disagreement, a stereotype, or simply an insult.
If the person points to a real pattern, you can evaluate the pattern without accepting the identity label. You might decide that you do seek reassurance too often, become highly reactive under uncertainty, or criticize yourself relentlessly. Those are workable descriptions. They can be examined in context, changed where useful, or discussed with a professional if they cause significant distress or impairment.
If the label is being used to dismiss or control you, focus on the communication boundary. “You can tell me which behavior is bothering you, but calling me neurotic does not help us solve it.” That sentence does not require a debate about whether the speaker intended offense.
Does Calling Someone Neurotic Mean They Have a Mental Illness?
No. The word does not establish that someone has a mental illness. Worry, irritability, repeated checking, sensitivity, perfectionistic concern, avoidance, self-criticism, or reassurance seeking can occur in ordinary life. They can also occur as symptoms within multiple conditions. Their presence alone does not identify a disorder.
The WHO ICD-11 diagnostic manual emphasizes standardized clinical identification of mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. Clinical diagnosis depends on defined requirements and professional assessment. A conversational judgment such as “neurotic” cannot substitute for that process.
Does “Neurotic” Mean High Neuroticism?
Not necessarily. This is one of the most common conceptual errors in everyday psychology. Neuroticism is a measured personality trait. “Neurotic” in conversation is a loose social description. Someone might be called neurotic because they are stressed this week, because they have one repetitive habit, because a partner dislikes their communication style, or because the speaker is using the word carelessly. None of those situations tells us the person’s standing on a validated personality measure.
Research about neuroticism can be scientifically useful when the trait has actually been measured. It should not be retrofitted onto casual labels. This is why the English Hub treats neurotic, neuroticism, and neurosis as separate search and knowledge territories rather than synonyms.
Is “Neurotic” a Bad Word in Therapy or Healthcare?
In contemporary clinical communication, the word is usually too ambiguous to do the work that diagnosis or formulation requires. A clinician needs language that identifies the relevant symptoms, patterns, context, severity, functioning, and diagnostic hypotheses. “Neurotic” by itself does not provide those details.
Modern diagnostic organizations also explicitly attend to stigma in language. The DSM-5-TR development process included review focused on non-stigmatizing language, and the APA Inclusive Language Guide recommends language that avoids reductive, pejorative, or casually offensive descriptions and respects how people prefer to be identified.
A clinician may still encounter “neurotic” in historical sources, theoretical traditions, or a patient’s own language. That does not make the word forbidden. It means the clinician should clarify what it means in that context rather than treat it as a current stand-alone diagnosis.
Should You Correct Someone Who Uses the Word?
Correction is most useful when it improves understanding. If someone casually says, “I get neurotic before flights,” a lecture may be unnecessary. A gentle clarification can be enough: “Do you mean you get really anxious and keep checking things?” If the word is being used to demean someone, a firmer response may be appropriate: “Let’s describe what happened rather than label the person.”
In professional writing, education, healthcare, journalism, and workplace documentation, precision matters more. Replace labels with observable behavior, self-reported experience, validated constructs, or actual diagnoses when those diagnoses are established and relevant. If a historical term is necessary, mark it as historical.
When Professional Help May Be Useful
The question is not whether someone is “neurotic enough” to need help. A more useful question is whether a specific pattern is persistent, distressing, difficult to control, or interfering with work, relationships, sleep, daily functioning, or quality of life.
Professional support may be useful when worry occupies large parts of the day, avoidance narrows a person’s life, repeated reassurance or checking becomes hard to resist, emotional reactions repeatedly damage relationships, self-criticism contributes to persistent low mood or shame, or the person feels unable to change a pattern despite repeated attempts.
The relevant assessment and treatment depend on the underlying problem. Anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, trauma-related conditions, personality difficulties, relationship patterns, and ordinary stress each require different questions. There is no evidence-based treatment for a diagnosis called “being neurotic,” because that is not a diagnosis.
A Practical Rule for Better Language
When you are tempted to say “neurotic,” complete this sentence instead: “What I actually mean is that the person…” Then describe something observable or reportable. Worries about a specific possibility. Rechecks a decision. Seeks reassurance. Becomes tense when plans change. Avoids uncertainty. Criticizes themselves harshly. Tries to control details. Feels insecure after conflict. Reacts strongly to criticism.
That translation does three useful things at once. It reduces stigma by avoiding a total-person label. It improves psychological precision by identifying the actual phenomenon. And it makes the next question answerable: Is this an ordinary response, a recurring behavior pattern, a personality tendency, a symptom, a clinically significant problem, or something else?
Frequently Asked Questions
Is “neurotic” a slur?
It can be used as an insult, but its meaning and impact are context-dependent. The more important questions are whether it reduces a person to a negative mental-health stereotype, whether the person objects to it, and whether a more precise description is available.
Is calling someone neurotic rude?
It can be. Calling a person “neurotic” is more likely to feel rude or demeaning than describing a specific behavior. If you need to address a problem, name the behavior and its impact rather than making a global statement about the person.
Is “neurotic” an outdated word?
It remains common in everyday language and appears in historical psychological writing, so it has not disappeared. Its older clinical associations do not map cleanly onto modern diagnosis, which makes it a poor choice when clinical precision is needed.
Is neurotic a diagnosis?
No. “Neurotic,” “neurotic person,” and “neurotic behavior” are not stand-alone modern diagnoses. A diagnosis requires defined criteria and appropriate assessment.
Does neurotic mean crazy or mentally ill?
No. The word cannot establish mental illness, and “crazy” is itself a vague and stigmatizing descriptor. If you mean worried, distressed, reactive, repeatedly checking, or another specific pattern, say that instead.
Is neuroticism offensive?
Neuroticism is a legitimate personality-science term when used to describe a measured trait construct. It becomes misleading when it is used as a casual insult or when someone assumes a person’s trait level without measurement.
Is it okay to say “I’m neurotic”?
You can choose your own self-description. If the phrase is useful shorthand for you, context matters. It may still be worth translating it into the actual experience—such as worry, checking, self-criticism, or stress—because that gives you more information about what you may want to change.
What is a better word than neurotic?
There is no single replacement. Use the word that matches the pattern: worried, anxious, tense, preoccupied, self-critical, emotionally reactive, repeatedly checking, reassurance seeking, perfectionistic, stressed, or uncomfortable with uncertainty. None of these terms automatically implies a diagnosis.
Is “neurotic behavior” an acceptable phrase?
It is understandable everyday language, but it is psychologically vague. For precision, describe the actual behavior. If you are discussing a clinical condition, use the established construct or diagnosis rather than treating “neurotic behavior” as a disorder.
Can a therapist call someone neurotic?
A therapist may discuss the term in historical, theoretical, or client-generated language. In contemporary diagnostic communication, it should not be treated as a stand-alone diagnosis. Specific symptoms, patterns, formulations, and recognized diagnostic terms are more informative.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). About DSM-5-TR. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm
American Psychological Association. (2023). Inclusive Language Guide (2nd ed.). https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Neurotic. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/neurotic
Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., Morgan, C., Rüsch, N., Brown, J. S. L., & Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000129
Dickens, G., & Picchioni, M. (2012). A systematic review of the terms used to refer to people who use mental health services: User perspectives. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 58(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764010392066
Kågström, A., Guerrero, Z., Alikhan Aliev, A., Tomášková, H., Rüsch, N., Ouali, U., Thornicroft, G., Sartorius, N., & Winkler, P. (2025). Mental health stigma and its consequences: A systematic scoping review of pathways to discrimination and adverse outcomes. EClinicalMedicine, 89, 103588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103588
O’Connor, C., Brassil, M., O’Sullivan, S., Seery, C., & Nearchou, F. (2022). How does diagnostic labelling affect social responses to people with mental illness? A systematic review of experimental studies using vignette-based designs. Journal of Mental Health, 31(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2021.1922653
Thornicroft, G., Sunkel, C., Aliev, A. A., et al. (2022). The Lancet Commission on ending stigma and discrimination in mental health. The Lancet, 400(10361), 1438–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01470-2
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263