Centre for Global Mental Health and Centre for Implementation Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
CBM Global and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2020 Sep 4;29:e164. doi: 10.1017/S2045796020000797.
To 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.
Seven 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.
Fifty-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.
Our 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.
确定并分类在中低收入国家(LMICs)心理健康领域中减少污名的有效干预措施的核心组成部分,并比较这些组成部分在文化背景和干预特征方面的差异。
使用包括四个类别术语(“污名”、“心理健康”、“干预”和“中低收入国家”)的策略搜索了七个数据库。此外,还包括纳入所有论文的引用链、咨询专家和从其他相关综述中手动搜索参考文献列表等方法。纳入的研究为旨在减少与心理健康相关的污名的干预措施,干预措施有一个与污名相关的结果测量。提取所有相关的干预特征和组成部分,并进行质量评估。采用“最佳拟合”框架综合法对数据进行组织,然后进行叙述性综合。
本综述共纳入 56 项研究,其中 4 项无效,单独进行了分析。提出了一个新的框架,根据纳入的研究对污名干预措施的组成部分进行了分类。大多数干预措施采用了多种方法,其中教育方法最常用(n = 83),社会接触(n = 8)和治疗方法(n = 3)很少使用。大多数干预措施(n = 42)基于医学知识,但是还涉及到其他主题。所有中低收入国家地区都有代表,但每个地区都由一个国家的研究主导。对于大多数类别,干预措施的组成部分在不同地区有所不同,表明文化之间存在差异,但只有少数研究是在当地环境中开发或进行文化适应的。
本研究表明,过去五年中,在中低收入国家减少心理健康污名的有效干预措施在数量和质量上都有所增加,并且成功地利用了各种组成部分,从有创意的方法到强调精神病患者的康复和力量。然而,尽管有强有力的证据表明,社会接触却很少提及。此外,还缺乏稳健的研究设计,短期干预和随访的数量很多,很少利用当地专业知识,并且研究仅限于少数几个中低收入国家。需要进一步研究来解决这些问题。在不同文化之间,某些组成部分存在一定的一致性,但总体而言,它们差异很大。该综述深入概述了心理健康污名减少的核心组成部分,为在资源匮乏的不同环境中的研究人员提供了更多的知识,以帮助规划心理健康污名减少干预措施。