Dataset Information

Validation of the Opening Minds Scale and patterns of stigma in Chilean primary health care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Stigma toward people with mental health problems (MHP) in primary health care (PHC) settings is an important public health challenge. Research on stigma toward MHP is relatively scarce in Chile and Latin America, as are instruments to measure stigma that are validated for use there. The present study aims to validate the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Professionals (OMS-HC) among staff and providers in public Chilean PHC clinics, and examine differences in stigma by sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

803 participants from 34 PHC clinics answered a self-administered questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis was completed. Average 15-item OMS-HC scores were calculated, and means were compared via t-test or ANOVA to identify group differences. Correlations of OMS-HC scores with other commonly used stigma scores were calculated to evaluate construct validity.

Results

The 3-factor OMS-HC structure was confirmed in this population. The average OMS-HC (? = 0.69) score was 34.55 (theoretical range 15-75). Significantly lower (less stigmatizing) mean OMS-HC scores were found in those with additional training and/or personal experience with MHP.

Conclusion

The validated, Spanish version of OMS-HC can be of use to further research stigma toward MHP in Chile and Latin America, advancing awareness and inspiring interventions to reduce stigma in the future.

SUBMITTER: Sapag JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6728029 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of the Opening Minds Scale and patterns of stigma in Chilean primary health care.

Sapag Jaime C JC Klabunde Rachel R Villarroel Luis L Velasco Paola R PR Álvarez Cinthia C Parra Claudia C Bobbili Sireesha J SJ Mascayano Franco F Bustamante Inés I Alvarado Rubén R Corrigan Patrick P

PloS one 20190905 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>Stigma toward people with mental health problems (MHP) in primary health care (PHC) settings is an important public health challenge. Research on stigma toward MHP is relatively scarce in Chile and Latin America, as are instruments to measure stigma that are validated for use there. The present study aims to validate the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Professionals (OMS-HC) among staff and providers in public Chilean PHC clinics, and examine differences in stigma by socio ...[more]

PMID: 31487333

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiminishing stigmatization for those with mental illnesses by health care providers (HCPs) is becoming a priority for programming and policy, as well as research. In order to be successful, we must accurately measure stigmatizing attitudes and behaviours among HCPs. The Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) was developed to measure stigma in HCP populations. In this study we revisit the factor structure and the responsiveness of the OMS-HC in a larger, more representative sample of HCPs that are more likely to be targets for anti-stigma interventions.MethodsBaseline data were collected from HCPs (n?=?1,523) during 12 different anti-stigma interventions across Canada. The majority of HCPs were women (77.4%) and were either physicians (MDs) (41.5%), nurses (17.0%), medical students (13.4%), or students in allied health programs (14.0%). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using complete pre-test (n?=?1,305) survey data and responsiveness to change analyses was examined with pre and post matched data (n?=?803). The internal consistency of the OMS-HC scale and subscales was evaluated using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The scale's sensitivity to change was examined using paired t-tests, effect sizes (Cohen's d), and standardized response means (SRM).ResultsThe EFA favored a 3-factor structure which accounted for 45.3% of the variance using 15 of 20 items. The overall internal consistency for the 15-item scale (??=?0.79) and three subscales (??=?0.67 to 0.68) was acceptable. Subgroup analysis showed the internal consistency was satisfactory across HCP groups including physicians and nurses (??=?0.66 to 0.78). Evidence for the scale's responsiveness to change occurred across multiple samples, including student-targeted interventions and workshops for practicing HCPs. The Social Distance subscale had the weakest level of responsiveness (SRM???0.50) whereas the more attitudinal-based items comprising the Attitude (SRM???0.91) and Disclosure and Help-seeking (SRM???0.68) subscales had stronger responsiveness.ConclusionsThe OMS-HC has shown to have acceptable internal consistency and has been successful in detecting positive changes in various anti-stigma interventions. Our results support the use of a 15-item scale, with the calculation of three sub scores for Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking, and Social Distance.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a widely used questionnaire to measure the stigmatising attitudes of healthcare providers towards patients with mental health problems. The psychometric properties of the scale; however, have never been investigated in Hungary. We aimed to thoroughly explore the factor structure of the OMS-HC and examine the key psychometric properties of the Hungarian version. METHODS:The OMS-HC is a self-report questionnaire that measures the overall stigmatising attitude by a total score, and three subscales can be calculated: Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking, and Social Distance. Our study population included specialists and trainees in adult and child psychiatry (n?=?211). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed, and higher-order factors were tested. We calculated the test-retest reliability on a subgroup of our sample (n?=?31) with a follow-up period of 1 month. The concurrent validity of the scale was measured with the Mental Illness: Clinician's Attitudes-4 scale (MICA-4). RESULTS:Three factors were extracted based on a parallel-analysis. A bifactor solution (a general factor and three specific factors) showed an excellent model-fit (root mean square error of approximation?=?0.025, comparative fit index?=?0.961, and Tucker-Lewis index?=?0.944). The model-based reliability was low; however, the general factor showed acceptable reliability (coefficient omega hierarchical =?0.56). The scale demonstrated a good concurrent validity with the MICA-4 [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)?=?0.77]. The test-retest reliability was excellent for the general factor (ICC?=?0.95) and good for the specific factors (ICC?=?0.90, 0.88, and 0.84, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The three dimensions of the OMS-HC was confirmed, and the scale was found to be an adequate measure of the stigmatising attitude in Hungary. The bifactor model is more favourable as compared to the three correlated factor model; however, despite the excellent internal structure, its model-based reliability was low.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many emergency primary health care workers experience aggressive behaviour from patients or visitors. Simple incident-reporting procedures exist for inpatient, psychiatric care, but a similar and simple incident-report for other health care settings is lacking. The aim was to adjust a pre-existing form for reporting aggressive incidents in a psychiatric inpatient setting to the emergency primary health care settings. We also wanted to assess the validity of the severity scores in emergency primary health care. METHODS:The Staff Observation Scale - Revised (SOAS-R) was adjusted to create a pilot version of the Staff Observation Scale - Revised Emergency (SOAS-RE). A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was added to the form to judge the severity of the incident. Data for validation of the pilot version of SOAS-RE were collected from ten casualty clinics in Norway during 12 months. Variance analysis was used to test gender and age differences. Linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relative impact that each of the five SOAS-RE columns had on the VAS score. The association between SOAS-RE severity score and VAS severity score was calculated by the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS:The SOAS-R was adjusted to emergency primary health care, refined and called The Staff Observation Aggression Scale - Revised Emergency (SOAS-RE). A total of 350 SOAS-RE forms were collected from the casualty clinics, but due to missing data, 291 forms were included in the analysis. SOAS-RE scores ranged from 1 to 22. The mean total severity score of SOAS-RE was 10.0 (standard deviation (SD) =4.1) and the mean VAS score was 45.4 (SD?=?26.7). We found a significant correlation of 0.45 between the SOAS-RE total severity scores and the VAS severity ratings. The linear regression analysis showed that individually each of the categories, which described the incident, had a low impact on the VAS score. CONCLUSIONS:The SOAS-RE seems to be a useful instrument for research, incident-recording and management of incidents in emergency primary care. The moderate correlation between SOAS-RE severity score and the VAS severity score shows that application of both the severity ratings is valuable to follow-up of workers affected by workplace violence.

Project description:ObjectiveSelf-stigma is the internalization of negative public attitudes and is often experienced by patients with epilepsy (PWE). Greater self-stigma is associated with lower self-esteem and hinders therapeutic behavior. The study aims were to develop the Epilepsy Self-Stigma Scale (ESSS) to assess self-stigma in PWE and to examine the scale's reliability and validity.MethodsWe created a test scale based on items from an existing stigma scale and the results of a previous qualitative analysis we conducted. We recruited 200 outpatients from departments specializing in epilepsy (psychiatry, neurology, and pediatric neurology) at four facilities in Tokyo and Saitama prefecture, Japan, between September and December 2020. Participants also completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II).ResultsQuestionnaires were returned from 102 participants (response rate: 51%). After excluding two participants with incomplete questionnaires, data for 100 participants were analyzed (53 women, 47 men; mean age [standard deviation]: 39.86 [17.45] years). Exploratory factor analysis extracted eight items loading on three factors: internalization of stigma, societal incomprehension, and confidentiality. Cronbach's α for all items and each factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.76-0.87). Test-retest reliability was confirmed using data from 21 participants who completed the scale twice (r = 0.72 to 0.90). ESSS total scores and subscale scores correlated with RSES and BDI-II scores (r = -0.30 to 0.55). The ESSS demonstrated substantial constructive validity. However, total scores did not significantly correlate with objective physician assessment of self-stigma.SignificanceThe results showed that the eight-item ESSS has high reliability and validity. This scale could facilitate the examination of factors associated with self-stigma in PWE, which could inform the development of effective interventions for reducing stigma.

Dataset Information

Validation of the Opening Minds Scale and patterns of stigma in Chilean primary health care.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Validation of the Opening Minds Scale and patterns of stigma in Chilean primary health care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets