Fighting stigma: interview with Grímur Atlason, CEO of Geðhjálp (Icelandic mental health alliance)
- Páll Matthíasson
- Jun 1
- 7 min read
Updated: 7 hours ago
Public attitudes towards mental illness have changed significantly in recent decades, yet stigma remains a major barrier to inclusion, recovery, and equal opportunities for many people living with mental health conditions. In Iceland, the user-led organisation Geðhjálp (The Icelandic Mental Health Alliance) has taken an active role in measuring and challenging stigma through recurring national surveys, public discussions, and educational initiatives. In this interview, Geðhjálp CEO Grímur Atlason discusses why the organisation chose to invest in long-term stigma research, what recent findings reveal about public attitudes towards depression, schizophrenia, addiction, and criminality, and how evidence-based advocacy can help shape public debate, policy, and mental health education for future generations.
Grímur Atlason
Icelandic advocate and public figure who has served as the executive director of Geðhjálp (The Icelandic Mental Health Alliance) since 2019. Trained as a developmental therapist and holding an MBA from the University of Iceland, he has had a notably varied career spanning healthcare, municipal administration, culture, and advocacy. Before joining Geðhjálp, he worked as a developmental therapist in Iceland and Denmark, served as mayor of Bolungarvík and municipal manager of Dalabyggð, and later directed the Iceland Airwaves music festival for eight years. Under his leadership, Geðhjálp has become an increasingly prominent voice in Icelandic mental health policy, anti-stigma work, suicide prevention, and service reform. Grímur is also known for his public commentary on social issues and for speaking openly about the long-term effects of childhood adversity and addiction within families.
Páll Matthíasson: You are the CEO of Geðhjálp, the Icelandic Mental Health Alliance, which is an advocacy organisation for service users, relatives, and all those interested in mental health. You have been running a series of meetings presenting research on stigma. Could you tell me how this came about?
Grímur Atlason: When Héðinn Unnsteinsson was chair of the organisation, we were heavily engaged in awareness-raising initiatives. Héðinn recalled a study on stigma conducted by Sigrún Ólafsdóttir and Jón Gunnar Bernburg, professors of sociology. There had not been another study of this kind in Iceland. It also seemed important to examine changes over time, since that study had been published in 2009. This was 2021, and we decided to repeat it. We chose this approach rather than conducting qualitative interviews in the community. When you interview people face-to-face, they may not openly express their prejudices—it may be more effective to conduct such research via anonymous surveys. So we decided to replicate the study in this format and approached Sigrún and Jón Gunnar, who were willing to undertake it.
What we also decided was to repeat the study every two years—to establish a benchmark and track how stigma changes over time, rather than only every 10–20 years. This would also allow us to evaluate whether Geðhjálp’s interventions—many of which are resource-intensive—actually have an effect. Sigrún Ólafsdóttir and Jón Gunnar continued the work, in collaboration with Bernice A. Pescosolido, who originally developed the research framework and had supervised Sigrún.
The survey was conducted in 2021. Certain elements—such as specific references to cocaine—were modified in the most recent iteration to reflect more general substance use. We also included ADHD, which we have now found carries less stigma than everyday psychological difficulties, so there was little reason to retain it. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2025. The results currently being presented are from 2025; the earlier findings were presented at the end of 2022.
In this latest round, we structured the analysis around specific domains: depression and schizophrenia—using vignettes corresponding to diagnostic criteria. Depression has been tracked since 2006, and the changes are substantial. While some stigma remains—for example regarding willingness to marry someone with depression—overall stigma towards depression is now relatively limited. Schizophrenia is particularly interesting: stigma has decreased, although it remains substantial. This reduction is somewhat unique and has not been widely observed elsewhere. That is encouraging, given that this is the most marginalised group—people with the most severe mental illnesses.
We also examined addiction. Active substance use is associated with greater stigma, and although addiction is often described as a disease, it is still widely perceived as the individual’s fault. Stigma decreases in recovery, which is notable. However, simply being admitted to a psychiatric ward does not reduce stigma. Treatment can reduce stigma, but hospitalisation alone does not. Similarly, imprisonment does not reduce stigma—rather, it reinforces perceptions of guilt and criminality. So the main domains we examined were crime, addiction, depression, and schizophrenia.
When you decided in 2020–2021 to initiate this work and restart the research, there must have been an underlying belief that stigma was significant and that it was important to reduce it. What motivated this?
The board of Geðhjálp consists of people with lived experience or relatives. People who come to us speak about systemic stigma—stigma in society, across multiple domains—and discrimination. This creates pressure for action. We need measurable goals. Héðinn and the board at the time wanted Geðhjálp to have a clear strategy and ways of evaluating impact. We also needed data to support our engagement with policymakers.
At that time, there was also problematic media discourse—for example, derogatory language about bipolar disorder, television portrayals of a minister developing mental illness presented in a highly negative way, and films such as Joker, which reinforce associations between mental illness and violence. It was clear that these narratives were pervasive.
You supported this research in 2021 and again now, but this time you also launched a series of public meetings to discuss stigma.
Initially, we held just a single presentation. But we realised that in today’s fast-paced society, this material requires more space. To create a more dynamic platform—and attract media attention—we wanted both researchers and people with lived experience involved. There are multiple perspectives, and no single one is entirely right or wrong. We aimed to create a thread connecting different voices.
We began at the University of Iceland during research days last autumn. Now, however, we wanted to move beyond a single evening news segment and create a forum that allows for more time and depth.
Active substance use is associated with greater stigma, and although addiction is often described as a disease, it is still widely perceived as the individual’s fault.
I have attended three of these open meetings so far, with one remaining. Attendance seems to be increasing—from about 15 at the first, to a nearly full room at the second, and a full house at the third. There seems to be momentum.
Yes, and we believe in this approach—holding a series of meetings focusing on different aspects of stigma identified in the survey: stigma toward mental illness at the first meeting, toward addiction at the second, and toward prisoners at the third. We also issue press releases and facilitate media interviews with speakers. That said, elected representatives tend not to attend in large numbers. Nevertheless, we will continue this work.
What are your next steps?
We want to go deeper. We are planning a longer event this autumn—not just one-hour lunchtime meetings—targeted at the research community, but open to the public. We want to build on what we have started. Researchers will continue publishing academic papers based on these data, as they have already done.
It is somewhat paradoxical that Geðhjálp, a user organisation, is funding this research—but no one else is doing so. We raise funds ourselves and decide how to allocate them. We want to be professional and ensure that our advocacy is as evidence-based as possible. The next step is clear: the survey will be repeated in 2027, and we will then assess whether additional domains should be included.
So, in part, this serves as guidance for where your priorities should lie when engaging with the public and policymakers?
Yes, among other things. It was encouraging to see reduced stigma toward schizophrenia—it suggests that our efforts are having an impact and that change is possible.
When we visit primary and secondary schools to deliver mental health education, we use, for example, a German image: an elderly man on a bus with the caption “Stefán is unwell.” The older man is in the foreground, but behind him, slightly out of focus, is a young man laughing and talking to a girl—that is Stefán. This illustrates how appearances can mislead. Similarly, in the Icelandic film Angels of the Universe, where a dentist drives into the sea, it is crucial to convey that things are not always as they seem.
Do these stigma surveys and your broader efforts to address stigma connect with your school outreach across the country?
Absolutely. The greatest opportunity for change lies in engaging young people. Generations differ—older generations may retain attitudes that younger people do not, simply because they were socialised differently. Language and attitudes are changing.
By engaging young people and opening up discussion, we can have a real impact. We have, for instance, left behind a mental health glossary that some teachers have continued to use in classroom discussions. We believe this matters. I noticed a difference during recent visits to upper secondary schools compared with two or three years ago—students seemed more attentive, more present, less distracted by their phones. The dialogue itself is important.
We have also held public meetings in rural areas. In Reykjavík there is always something happening, but in smaller communities such opportunities are rarer. These conversations, I believe, are meaningful.
Thank you very much, and best of luck with your work. □
AUTHOR: Páll Matthíasson
MD PhD FRCPsych FRCP FRCPE, is a consultant psychiatrist at Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland. He graduated in medicine from The University of Iceland, completed his training in adult psychiatry from the Maudsley & Bethlem Hospitals in London and did a PhD in psychopharmacology from the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London. Páll has been director of Mental Health Services at Landspitali, CEO / Director of Landspitali and honorary senior lecturer at the University of Iceland. Currently he is Chairman of The Icelandic Mental Health Commission, a multi-stakeholder advisory group to the Icelandic government on mental health issues. His research interests include treatment-resistant schizophrenia, reducing coercion in psychiatry, burn-out and resilience.
Image by Ólöf Björnsdóttir.
