Dataset Information

Stigma reduction interventions for children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review of intervention strategies.

ABSTRACT: Stigmatisation and discrimination are common worldwide, and have profound negative impacts on health and quality of life. Research, albeit limited, has focused predominantly on adults. There is a paucity of literature about stigma reduction strategies concerning children and adolescents, with evidence especially sparse for low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This systematic review synthesised child-focused stigma reduction strategies in LMIC, and compared these to adult-focused interventions. Relevant publications were systematically searched in July and August 2018 in the following databases; Cochrane, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed and WorldWideScience.org, and through Google Custom Search. Included studies and identified reviews were cross-referenced. Three categories of search terms were used: (i) stigma, (ii) intervention, and (iii) LMIC settings. Data on study design, participants and intervention details including strategies and implementation factors were extracted. Within 61 unique publications describing 79 interventions, utilising 14 unique stigma reduction strategies, 14 papers discussed 21 interventions and 10 unique strategies involving children. Most studies targeted HIV/AIDS (50% for children, 38% for adults) or mental illness (14% vs 34%) stigma. Community education (47%), individual empowerment (15%) and social contact (12%) were most employed in child-focused interventions. Most interventions were implemented at one socio-ecological level; child-focused interventions mostly employed community-level strategies (88%). Intervention duration was mostly short; between half a day and a week. Printed or movie-based material was key to deliver child-focused interventions (37%), while professionals most commonly implemented adult-focused interventions (53%). Ten unique, child-focused strategies were all evaluated positively, using a diverse set of scales. Children and adolescents are under-represented in stigma reduction in LMIC. More stigma reduction interventions in LMIC, addressing a wider variety of stigmas, with children as direct and indirect target group, are needed. This systematic review is registered under International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO, reference number #CRD42018094700.

SUBMITTER: Hartog K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7313083 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stigma reduction interventions for children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review of intervention strategies.

Hartog Kim K Hubbard Carly D CD Krouwer Angelica F AF Thornicroft Graham G Kohrt Brandon A BA Jordans Mark J D MJD

Social science & medicine (1982) 20191219

Stigmatisation and discrimination are common worldwide, and have profound negative impacts on health and quality of life. Research, albeit limited, has focused predominantly on adults. There is a paucity of literature about stigma reduction strategies concerning children and adolescents, with evidence especially sparse for low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This systematic review synthesised child-focused stigma reduction strategies in LMIC, and compared these to adult-focused intervention ...[more]

PMID: 31978636

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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: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:Neonatal mortality remains a significant health problem in low-income settings. Low-cost essential newborn care (ENC) interventions with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness exist but have not reached high coverage (≥90%). Little is known about the strategies used to implement these interventions or how they relate to improved coverage. We conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes for ENC in low- and low middle-income countries capturing evidence from five medical and global health databases from 1990 to 2018. We included studies of implementation of delayed cord clamping, immediate drying, skin-to-skin contact (SSC) and/or early initiation of breastfeeding implemented in the first hour (facility-based studies) or the 1st day (community-based studies) of life. Implementation strategies and outcomes were categorized according to published frameworks: Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and Outcomes for Implementation Research. The relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes was evaluated using standardized mean differences and correlation coefficients. Forty-three papers met inclusion criteria. Interventions included community-based care/health promotion and facility-based support and health care provider training. Included studies used 3-31 implementation strategies, though the consistency with which strategies were applied was variable. Conduct educational meetings was the most frequently used strategy. Included studies reported 1-4 implementation outcomes with coverage reported most frequently. Heterogeneity was high and no statistically significant association was found between the number of implementation strategies used and coverage of ENC. This review highlights several challenges in learning from implementation of ENC in low- and low middle-income countries, particularly poor description of interventions and implementation outcomes. We recommend use of UK Medical Research Council guidelines (2015) for process evaluations and checklists for reporting implementation studies. Improved reporting of implementation research in this setting is necessary to learn how to improve service delivery and outcomes and thereby reduce neonatal mortality.

Project description:Background:We systematically reviewed implementation research targeting depression interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to assess gaps in methodological coverage. Methods:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of depression interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome published through March 2019. Results:A total of 8714 studies were screened, 759 were assessed for eligibility, and 79 studies met inclusion criteria. Common implementation outcomes reported were acceptability (n = 50; 63.3%), feasibility (n = 28; 35.4%), and fidelity (n = 18; 22.8%). Only four studies (5.1%) reported adoption or penetration, and three (3.8%) reported sustainability. The Sub-Saharan Africa region (n = 29; 36.7%) had the most studies. The majority of studies (n = 59; 74.7%) reported outcomes for a depression intervention implemented in pilot researcher-controlled settings. Studies commonly focused on Hybrid Type-1 effectiveness-implementation designs (n = 53; 67.1), followed by Hybrid Type-3 (n = 16; 20.3%). Only 21 studies (26.6%) tested an implementation strategy, with the most common being revising professional roles (n = 10; 47.6%). The most common intervention modality was individual psychotherapy (n = 30; 38.0%). Common study designs were mixed methods (n = 27; 34.2%), quasi-experimental uncontrolled pre-post (n = 17; 21.5%), and individual randomized trials (n = 16; 20.3). Conclusions:Existing research has focused on early-stage implementation outcomes. Most studies have utilized Hybrid Type-1 designs, with the primary aim to test intervention effectiveness delivered in researcher-controlled settings. Future research should focus on testing and optimizing implementation strategies to promote scale-up of evidence-based depression interventions in routine care. These studies should use high-quality pragmatic designs and focus on later-stage implementation outcomes such as cost, penetration, and sustainability.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate evidence from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the use of task-shifting strategies for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of RCTs that utilised a task-shifting strategy in the management of CVD in LMICs.Data sourcesWe searched the following databases for relevant RCTs: PubMed from the 1940s, EMBASE from 1974, Global Health from 1910, Ovid Health Star from 1966, Web of Knowledge from 1900, Scopus from 1823, CINAHL from 1937 and RCTs from ClinicalTrials.gov.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe focused on RCTs published in English, but without publication year. We included RCTs in which the intervention used task shifting (non-physician healthcare workers involved in prescribing of medications, treatment and/or medical testing) and non-physician healthcare providers in the management of CV risk factors and diseases (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, stroke, coronary artery disease or heart failure), as well as RCTs that were conducted in LMICs. We excluded studies that are not RCTs.ResultsOf the 2771 articles identified, only three met the predefined criteria. All three trials were conducted in practice-based settings among patients with hypertension (2 studies) and diabetes (1 study), with one study also incorporating home visits. The duration of the studies ranged from 3 to 12 months, and the task-shifting strategies included provision of medication prescriptions by nurses, community health workers and pharmacists and telephone follow-up posthospital discharge. Both hypertension studies reported a significant mean blood pressure reduction (2/1 mm Hg and 30/15 mm Hg), and the diabetes trial reported a reduction in the glycated haemoglobin levels of 1.87%.ConclusionsThere is a dearth of evidence on the implementation of task-shifting strategies to reduce the burden of CVD in LMICs. Effective task-shifting interventions targeted at reducing the global CVD epidemic in LMICs are urgently needed.

Dataset Information

Stigma reduction interventions for children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review of intervention strategies.

Publications

Stigma reduction interventions for children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review of intervention strategies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets