Septarini Ni Wayan, Hendriks Jacqueline, Maycock Bruce, Burns Sharyn
School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia.
Front Reprod Health. 2021 Oct 29;3:688568. doi: 10.3389/frph.2021.688568. eCollection 2021.
Much stigma-related research focuses on marginalized populations, including men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender people. The importance of research in this area is widely recognized, however methodologies and measures vary between studies. This scoping review will collate existing information about how stigma-related research has been conducted in low/middle income countries (LMICs) within the Asia Pacific region, and will compare research designs, sampling frameworks, and measures. Strengths and limitations of these studies will inform recommendations for future stigma-related health research. A methodological framework for scoping studies was applied. Searches of Psych INFO, Scopus, ProQuest, Global Health and PubMed were used to identify articles. Stigma-related research amongst MSM and transgender communities, published between 2010 and 2019 in LMICs within the Asia Pacific region were included. A total of 129 articles based on 123 different studies were included. Of the 129 articles 51.19% ( = 66) were quantitative; 44.96% ( = 57) were qualitative and 3.88% ( = 5) were mixed methods studies. The majority of studies (n = 57; 86.36%) implemented a cross sectional survey. In-depth interviews ( = 20, 34.48%) were also common. Only 3.88% of studies utilized mixed-methods design. Non-probabilistic and probabilistic sampling methods were employed in 99.22 and 0.78% of studies respectively. The most common measures used in quantitative studies were the Center for Epidemiological Study on Depression (CES-D) ( = 18) and the Self Stigma Scale (SSS) ( = 6). Strengths and limitations proposed by researchers included in this review are summarized as lesson learnt and best practices in stigma-related research.
许多与污名相关的研究聚焦于边缘化人群,包括男男性行为者(MSM)和跨性别者。该领域研究的重要性已得到广泛认可,但不同研究的方法和测量方式存在差异。本范围综述将整理亚太地区低收入/中等收入国家(LMICs)开展污名相关研究的现有信息,并比较研究设计、抽样框架和测量方式。这些研究的优势和局限性将为未来污名相关健康研究提供建议。本研究应用了范围研究的方法框架。通过检索心理学文摘数据库(Psych INFO)、Scopus、ProQuest、全球健康数据库(Global Health)和医学期刊数据库(PubMed)来识别相关文章。纳入了2010年至2019年间在亚太地区低收入/中等收入国家发表的关于男男性行为者和跨性别群体中污名相关的研究。总共纳入了基于123项不同研究的129篇文章。在这129篇文章中(=66),51.19%为定量研究;44.96%(=57)为定性研究,3.88%(=5)为混合方法研究。大多数研究(n=57;86.36%)采用横断面调查。深度访谈(=20,34.48%)也较为常见。只有3.88%的研究采用混合方法设计。分别有99.22%和0.78%的研究采用了非概率抽样和概率抽样方法。定量研究中最常用的测量方法是流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)(=18)和自我污名量表(SSS)(=6)。本综述纳入的研究人员提出的优势和局限性被总结为污名相关研究的经验教训和最佳实践。