Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Jul 1;71(7):735-737. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900587. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
Contact-based interventions are commonly regarded as best practice in stigma reduction. In this Open Forum, the author used the findings from eight systematic reviews to critically evaluate the quality of the evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions. He found that trials of contact-based interventions lacked methodological rigor, reporting was biased toward positive results, the trials were subject to demand characteristics, no dose effects were observed, effects did not last, and no evidence supported behavior change. Standards for future trials are proposed and implications for reducing stigma and discrimination are discussed.
基于接触的干预措施通常被认为是减少污名化的最佳实践。在本论坛文章中，作者使用八项系统评价的研究结果，批判性地评估了此类干预措施有效性的证据质量。他发现，基于接触的干预措施试验缺乏方法学严谨性，报告结果存在偏倚，试验受到需求特征的影响，没有观察到剂量效应，效果不能持久，并且没有证据支持行为改变。提出了未来试验的标准，并讨论了减少污名化和歧视的影响。
