Centre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Acton, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
World Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;13(2):161-75. doi: 10.1002/wps.20129.
The stigma associated with mental disorders is a global public health problem. Programs to combat it must be informed by the best available evidence. To this end, a meta-analysis was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of existing programs. A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases yielded 34 relevant papers, comprising 33 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-seven papers (26 trials) contained data that could be incorporated into a quantitative analysis. Of these trials, 19 targeted personal stigma or social distance (6,318 participants), six addressed perceived stigma (3,042 participants) and three self-stigma (238 participants). Interventions targeting personal stigma or social distance yielded small but significant reductions in stigma across all mental disorders combined (d=0.28, 95% CI: 0.17-0.39, p<0.001) as well as for depression (d=0.36, 95% CI: 0.10-0.60, p<0.01), psychosis (d=0.20, 95% CI: 0.06-0.34, p<0.01) and generic mental illness (d=0.30, 95% CI: 0.10-0.50, p<0.01). Educational interventions were effective in reducing personal stigma (d=0.33, 95% CI: 0.19-0.42, p<0.001) as were interventions incorporating consumer contact (d=0.47, 95% CI: 0.17-0.78, p<0.001), although there were insufficient studies to demonstrate an effect for consumer contact alone. Internet programs were at least as effective in reducing personal stigma as face-to-face delivery. There was no evidence that stigma interventions were effective in reducing perceived or self-stigma. In conclusion, there is an evidence base to inform the roll out of programs for improving personal stigma among members of the community. However, there is a need to investigate methods for improving the effectiveness of these programs and to develop interventions that are effective in reducing perceived and internalized stigma.
与精神障碍相关的污名是一个全球性的公共卫生问题。与之作斗争的项目必须以现有最佳证据为依据。为此,进行了荟萃分析以调查现有计划的有效性。对 PubMed、PsycINFO 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了系统搜索,共获得 34 篇相关论文,包括 33 项随机对照试验。27 篇论文(26 项试验)包含可纳入定量分析的数据。在这些试验中,有 19 项针对个人污名或社会距离(6318 名参与者),6 项针对感知污名(3042 名参与者),3 项针对自我污名(238 名参与者)。针对个人污名或社会距离的干预措施导致所有精神障碍综合污名(d=0.28,95%CI:0.17-0.39,p<0.001)以及抑郁症(d=0.36,95%CI:0.10-0.60,p<0.01)、精神病(d=0.20,95%CI:0.06-0.34,p<0.01)和一般精神疾病(d=0.30,95%CI:0.10-0.50,p<0.01)显著减少。教育干预措施在减少个人污名方面是有效的(d=0.33,95%CI:0.19-0.42,p<0.001),纳入消费者接触的干预措施也是有效的(d=0.47,95%CI:0.17-0.78,p<0.001),尽管没有足够的研究证明单独接触消费者有效。互联网计划在减少个人污名方面至少与面对面交付一样有效。没有证据表明污名干预措施在减少感知或内化污名方面有效。总之,有证据表明,可以为在社区成员中开展改善个人污名的项目提供依据。然而,需要研究提高这些计划有效性的方法,并开发有效减少感知和内化污名的干预措施。