Damsté Carlijn, Gronholm Petra C, Groot Tjitske de, Gurung Dristy, Makhmud Akerke, Peters Ruth M H, Hartog Kim
IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Centre for Global Mental Health and Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, United Kingdom.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 Mar 27;4(3):e0003053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003053. eCollection 2024.
Social contact (SC) has been identified as a promising strategy for stigma reduction. Different types of SC exist. Various scholars defined positive factors to strengthen SC. This study aims to investigate the application and effectiveness of SC as a strategy to reduce stigmatisation across stigmas, settings and populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We specifically examine the use of positive factors. A systematic review was conducted in twelve electronic databases using key terms related to stigma AND social contact AND intervention AND LMICs. Data were synthesised narratively. Study quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were used with first/corresponding authors of included publications to investigate their practical experiences with SC. Forty-four studies (55 publications) were identified. Various stigmas (n = 16) were targeted, including mental health (43%). Indirect (n = 18) and direct contact (n = 16) were used most frequently, followed by collaboration, imagined and vicarious contact, or a combination. The most applied additional strategy was education. Almost half of the studies, explicitly or implicitly, described positive factors for SC, such as PWLE training or disconfirming stereotypes. The majority suggested that SC is effective in reducing stigma, although inconsistent reporting overshadows conclusions. Perspectives of people with lived experience (PWLE) were infrequently included. Expert perspectives stressed the importance of contextualisation, PWLE participation, and evaluation of SC. This study provides an overview of SC as a stigma reduction strategy within LMICs. Conclusions about which type of SC is more effective or whether SC is more effective for a specific stigma category cannot be drawn. We recommend future research to strengthen reporting on effectiveness as well as PWLE perspective and SC processes, and to further critically examine the potential of SC. An overview of positive factors applied to strengthen SC is provided, which can stimulate reflection and guide future SC.
社会接触(SC)已被确定为一种很有前景的减少污名化的策略。存在不同类型的社会接触。众多学者定义了强化社会接触的积极因素。本研究旨在调查社会接触作为一种在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)减少各类污名、不同环境和人群中污名化的策略的应用及效果。我们特别考察了积极因素的使用情况。使用与污名、社会接触、干预及低收入和中等收入国家相关的关键词,在十二个电子数据库中进行了系统综述。对数据进行了叙述性综合分析。使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的批判性评价清单对研究质量进行了评估。此外,还对纳入出版物的第一作者/通讯作者进行了半结构化访谈,以调查他们在社会接触方面的实际经验。共识别出44项研究(55篇出版物)。涉及了各类污名(n = 16),包括心理健康方面(43%)。最常使用的是间接接触(n = 18)和直接接触(n = 16),其次是合作、想象性接触和替代性接触,或多种方式结合。最常用的附加策略是教育。几乎一半的研究明确或隐含地描述了社会接触的积极因素,如对有生活经历者(PWLE)的培训或打破刻板印象。大多数研究表明社会接触在减少污名方面是有效的,尽管报告不一致使结论蒙上阴影。很少纳入有生活经历者(PWLE)的观点。专家观点强调了情境化、有生活经历者参与以及对社会接触进行评估的重要性。本研究概述了社会接触作为低收入和中等收入国家减少污名化的一种策略。无法得出关于哪种类型的社会接触更有效或社会接触对特定污名类别是否更有效的结论。我们建议未来的研究加强对有效性以及有生活经历者观点和社会接触过程的报告,并进一步严格审视社会接触的潜力。提供了一份用于强化社会接触的积极因素概述,这可以激发思考并指导未来的社会接触。