Dataset Information

Reducing mental health-related stigma in primary health care settings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

This systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.

Methods

Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.

Conclusions

More rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.

SUBMITTER: Heim E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6399081 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma among medical and nursing students in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.MethodsData collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, professional students in medicine and nursing, and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full texts was done with the software MAXQDA. Full texts were analysed with regard to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a methodological quality assessment was undertaken.ResultsA total of nine studies from six countries (Brazil, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somaliland and Turkey) were included. All studies reported significant results in at least one outcome measure. However, from the available literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the most effective interventions. No meta-analysis could be calculated due to the large heterogeneity of intervention content, evaluation design and outcome measures. Studies with contact interventions (either face-to-face or video) demonstrated attitudinal change. There was a clear lack of studies focusing on discriminatory behaviours. Accordingly, training of specific communication and clinical skills was lacking in most studies, with the exception of one study that showed a positive effect of training interview skills on attitudes. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented. The methodological quality of most studies was relatively low, with the exception of two studies.ConclusionsThere is an increase in studies on anti-stigma interventions among professional students in LMICs. Some of these studies used contact interventions and showed positive effects. A stronger focus on clinical and communication skills and behaviour-related outcomes is needed in future studies.

Project description:AimsTo identify and categorise core components of effective stigma reduction interventions in the field of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and compare these components across cultural contexts and between intervention characteristics.MethodsSeven databases were searched with a strategy including four categories of terms ('stigma', 'mental health', 'intervention' and 'low- and middle-income countries'). Additional methods included citation chaining of all papers identified for inclusion, consultation with experts and hand searching reference lists from other related reviews. Studies on interventions in LMICs aiming to reduce stigma related to mental health with a stigma-related outcome measure were included. All relevant intervention characteristics and components were extracted and a quality assessment was undertaken. A 'best fit' framework synthesis was used to organise data, followed by a narrative synthesis.ResultsFifty-six studies were included in this review, of which four were ineffective and analysed separately. A framework was developed which presents a new categorisation of stigma intervention components based on the included studies. Most interventions utilised multiple methods and of the 52 effective studies educational methods were used most frequently (n = 83), and both social contact (n = 8) and therapeutic methods (n = 3) were used infrequently. Most interventions (n = 42) based their intervention on medical knowledge, but a variety of other themes were addressed. All regions with LMICs were represented, but every region was dominated by studies from one country. Components varied between regions for most categories indicating variation between cultures, but only a minority of studies were developed in the local setting or culturally adapted.ConclusionsOur study suggests effective mental health stigma reduction interventions in LMICs have increased in quantity and quality over the past five years, and a wide variety of components have been utilised successfully - from creative methods to emphasis on recovery and strength of people with mental illness. Yet there is minimal mention of social contact, despite existing strong evidence for it. There is also a lack of robust research designs, a high number of short-term interventions and follow-up, nominal use of local expertise and the research is limited to a small number of LMICs. More research is needed to address these issues. Some congruity exists in components between cultures, but generally they vary widely. The review gives an in-depth overview of mental health stigma reduction core components, providing researchers in varied resource-poor settings additional knowledge to help with planning mental health stigma reduction interventions.

Project description:IntroductionStigmatisation impedes health and quality of life. Evidence regarding stigma reduction interventions is, albeit growing, limited. There is a gap in the availability and evidence of interventions for reducing stigma among children and adolescents, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This paper describes the process that led to a stigma reduction intervention impacting children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries, following previously conducted formative research.MethodsIn this study, we conducted (i) online stakeholder consultations (FGD) (n = 43), including a survey assessing intervention acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and scalability (n = 16); and (ii) preliminary field-testing of intervention content online and in a refugee settlement in Uganda.FindingsStakeholder consultation showed the initial version of STRETCH (Stigma Reduction to Trigger Change for Children), albeit positively received, required adaptations. We made adjustments to i) take into account implementation duration, intervention flexibility and intersectionality; (ii) strengthen the involvement of individuals, including adolescents/youth, with lived stigma experience; (iii) target people close to individuals with lived stigma experience; and (iv) address feasibility and sustainability concerns. Preliminary field-testing simplified STRETCH while adding a community outreach component and revisiting the intervention setup, to ensure STRETCH can also be applied from a modular perspective.ConclusionWe conducted a process to develop a child-focused multi-component stigma reduction intervention, with intended applicability across stigmas and settings. This paper provides an overview of the intervention development process, generating intervention-specific learnings with generic value. STRETCH aims to reduce stigmatisation at the implementing organisation, create community-wide reflection and stigma reduction demand, and reduce stigmatisation among various target groups.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nearly 40 years into the HIV epidemic, the persistence of HIV stigma is a matter of grave urgency. Discrimination (i.e. enacted stigma) in healthcare settings is particularly problematic as it deprives people of critical healthcare services while also discouraging preventive care seeking by confirming fears of anticipated stigma. We review existing research on the effectiveness of stigma interventions in healthcare settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where stigma control efforts are often further complicated by heavy HIV burdens, less developed healthcare systems, and the layering of HIV stigma with discrimination towards other marginalized identities. This review describes progress in this field to date and identifies research gaps to guide future directions for research. METHODS:We conducted a scoping review of HIV reduction interventions in LMIC healthcare settings using Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus (through March 5, 2020). Information regarding study design, stigma measurement techniques, intervention features and study findings were extracted. We also assessed methodological rigor using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:Our search identified 8766 studies, of which 19 were included in the final analysis. All but one study reported reductions in stigma following the intervention. The studies demonstrated broad regional distribution across LMIC and many employed designs that made use of a control condition. However, these strengths masked key shortcomings including a dearth of research from the lowest income category of LMIC and a lack of interventions to address institutional or structural determinants of stigma. Lastly, despite the fact that most stigma measures were based on existing instruments, only three studies described steps taken to validate or adapt the stigma measures to local settings. CONCLUSIONS:Combating healthcare stigma in LMIC demands interventions that can simultaneously address resource constraints, high HIV burden and more severe stigma. Our findings suggest that this will require more objective, reliable and culturally adaptable stigma measures to facilitate meaningful programme evaluation and comparison across studies. All but one study concluded that their interventions were effective in reducing healthcare stigma. Though encouraging, the fact that most studies measured impact using self-reported measures suggests that social desirability may bias results upwards. Homogeneity of study results also hindered our ability to draw substantive conclusions about potential best practices to guide the design of future stigma reduction programmes.

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, transgender and other gender diverse (trans) people face pervasive stigma, which contributes to health inequities across multiple health outcomes. Stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequities because it simultaneously limits access to resources, contributes to systemic vulnerability and generates chronic stress. Anti-trans stigma occurs across multiple socioecological levels, resulting in multiple possible definitions and measurements of trans stigma. Understanding how trans stigma has been measured in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to health promotion efforts for trans communities. Accordingly, this scoping review will identify and examine how anti-trans stigma has been measured in existing LMIC-specific research to inform best practices for measurement of anti-trans stigma that includes consideration of local context.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a scoping review of anti-trans stigma in LMICs. We will search (from January 2001 to December 2021) PubMed, WHO Global Medicus and EBSCO. Study selection will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Original studies in English, Spanish, Arabic or Russian will be included. Reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Data analysis will involve quantitative and qualitative methods. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationAs a scoping review (no direct interaction with participants), this study is exempt from human subjects oversight. Understanding context-specific ways to measure anti-trans stigma is urgently needed to support trans health globally. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. Results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and likely in other media such as conferences, seminars and symposia. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/qcs2v.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.