Explore the vast range of titles available.

Stigma associated with mental illness can delay or prevent help-seeking and service contact. Stigma-related influences on pathways to care in the early stages of psychotic disorders have not been systematically examined. This review systematically assessed findings from qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research studies on the relationship between stigma and pathways to care (i.e. processes associated with help-seeking and health service contact) among people experiencing first-episode psychosis or at clinically defined increased risk of developing psychotic disorder. Forty studies were identified through searches of electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts) from 1996 to 2016, supplemented by reference searches and expert consultations. Data synthesis involved thematic analysis of qualitative findings, narrative synthesis of quantitative findings, and a meta-synthesis combining these results. The meta-synthesis identified six themes in relation to stigma on pathways to care among the target population: 'sense of difference', 'characterizing difference negatively', 'negative reactions (anticipated and experienced)', 'strategies', 'lack of knowledge and understanding', and 'service-related factors'. This synthesis constitutes a comprehensive overview of the current evidence regarding stigma and pathways to care at early stages of psychotic disorders, and illustrates the complex manner in which stigma-related processes can influence help-seeking and service contact among first-episode psychosis and at-risk groups. Our findings can serve as a foundation for future research in the area, and inform early intervention efforts and approaches to mitigate stigma-related concerns that currently influence recognition of early difficulties and contribute to delayed help-seeking and access to care.

Individuals often avoid or delay seeking professional help for mental health problems. Stigma may be a key deterrent to help-seeking but this has not been reviewed systematically. Our systematic review addressed the overarching question: What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking for mental health problems? Subquestions were: (a) What is the size and direction of any association between stigma and help-seeking? (b) To what extent is stigma identified as a barrier to help-seeking? (c) What processes underlie the relationship between stigma and help-seeking? (d) Are there population groups for which stigma disproportionately deters help-seeking? Five electronic databases were searched from 1980 to 2011 and references of reviews checked. A meta-synthesis of quantitative and qualitative studies, comprising three parallel narrative syntheses and subgroup analyses, was conducted. The review identified 144 studies with 90,189 participants meeting inclusion criteria. The median association between stigma and help-seeking was d = - 0.27, with internalized and treatment stigma being most often associated with reduced help-seeking. Stigma was the fourth highest ranked barrier to help-seeking, with disclosure concerns the most commonly reported stigma barrier. A detailed conceptual model was derived that describes the processes contributing to, and counteracting, the deterrent effect of stigma on help-seeking. Ethnic minorities, youth, men and those in military and health professions were disproportionately deterred by stigma. Stigma has a small- to moderate-sized negative effect on help-seeking. Review findings can be used to help inform the design of interventions to increase help-seeking.

For too long there have been heated debates between those who believe that mental health care should be largely or solely provided from hospitals and those who adhere to the view that community care should fully replace hospitals. The aim of this study was to propose a conceptual model relevant for mental health service development in low-, medium- and high-resource settings worldwide. Method We conducted a review of the relevant peer-reviewed evidence and a series of surveys including more than 170 individual experts with direct experience of mental health system change worldwide. We integrated data from these multiple sources to develop the balanced care model (BCM), framed in three sequential steps relevant to different resource settings. Low-resource settings need to focus on improving the recognition and treatment of people with mental illnesses in primary care. Medium-resource settings in addition can develop 'general adult mental health services', namely (i) out-patient clinics, (ii) community mental health teams (CMHTs), (iii) acute in-patient services, (iv) community residential care and (v) work/occupation. High-resource settings, in addition to primary care and general adult mental health services, can also provide specialized services in these same five categories. The BCM refers both to a balance between hospital and community care and to a balance between all of the service components (e.g. clinical teams) that are present in any system, whether this is in low-, medium- or high-resource settings. The BCM therefore indicates that a comprehensive mental health system includes both community- and hospital-based components of care.

Little is known about how the views of the public are related to self-stigma among people with mental health problems. Despite increasing activity aimed at reducing mental illness stigma, there is little evidence to guide and inform specific anti-stigma campaign development and messages to be used in mass campaigns. A better understanding of the association between public knowledge, attitudes and behaviours and the internalization of stigma among people with mental health problems is needed. This study links two large, international datasets to explore the association between public stigma in 14 European countries (Eurobarometer survey) and individual reports of self-stigma, perceived discrimination and empowerment among persons with mental illness (n=1835) residing in those countries [the Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Networks (GAMIAN) study]. Individuals with mental illness living in countries with less stigmatizing attitudes, higher rates of help-seeking and treatment utilization and better perceived access to information had lower rates of self-stigma and perceived discrimination and those living in countries where the public felt more comfortable talking to people with mental illness had less self-stigma and felt more empowered. Targeting the general public through mass anti-stigma interventions may lead to a virtuous cycle by disrupting the negative feedback engendered by public stigma, thereby reducing self-stigma among people with mental health problems. A combined approach involving knowledge, attitudes and behaviour is needed; mass interventions that facilitate disclosure and positive social contact may be the most effective. Improving availability of information about mental health issues and facilitating access to care and help-seeking also show promise with regard to stigma.

This systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma among medical and nursing students in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours. Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, professional students in medicine and nursing, and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full texts was done with the software MAXQDA. Full texts were analysed with regard to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a methodological quality assessment was undertaken. A total of nine studies from six countries (Brazil, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somaliland and Turkey) were included. All studies reported significant results in at least one outcome measure. However, from the available literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the most effective interventions. No meta-analysis could be calculated due to the large heterogeneity of intervention content, evaluation design and outcome measures. Studies with contact interventions (either face-to-face or video) demonstrated attitudinal change. There was a clear lack of studies focusing on discriminatory behaviours. Accordingly, training of specific communication and clinical skills was lacking in most studies, with the exception of one study that showed a positive effect of training interview skills on attitudes. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented. The methodological quality of most studies was relatively low, with the exception of two studies. There is an increase in studies on anti-stigma interventions among professional students in LMICs. Some of these studies used contact interventions and showed positive effects. A stronger focus on clinical and communication skills and behaviour-related outcomes is needed in future studies.

This paper aims to provide an overview of evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs) worldwide to address: the nature of stigma and discrimination, relevant context-specific factors, global patterns of these phenomena and their measurement and quantitative and qualitative evidence of interventions intended to reduce their occurrence and impact. The background to this study is that the large majority of studies concerned with identifying effective interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination originate in high-income countries (HICs). This paper therefore presents such evidence from, and relevant to, LAMICs. Conceptual overview of the relevant peer-reviewed and grey literature on stigma and discrimination related to mental illness in LAMICs are available in English, Spanish, French and Russian. Few intervention studies were identified related to stigma re-education in LAMICs. None of these addressed behaviour change/discrimination, and there were no long-term follow-up studies. There is therefore insufficient evidence at present to know which overall types of intervention may be effective and feasible and in LAMICs, how best to target key groups such as healthcare staff, and how far they may need to be locally customised to be acceptable for large-scale use in these settings. In particular, forms of social contacts, which have been shown to be the most effective intervention to reduce stigma among adults in HICs, have not yet been assessed sufficiently to know whether these methods are also effective in LAMICs. Generating information about effective interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination in LAMICs is now an important mental health priority worldwide.

Stigma related to mental health is a major barrier to help-seeking resulting in a large treatment gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This study assessed changes in knowledge, attitude and behaviour, and stigma related to help-seeking among participants exposed to an anti-stigma campaign. The campaign, using multi-media interventions, was part of the SMART Mental Health Project, conducted for 3 months, across 42 villages in rural Andhra Pradesh, in South India. Mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in two villages using a pre-post design. A total of 1576 and 2100 participants were interviewed, at pre- and post-intervention phases of the campaign. Knowledge was not increased. Attitudes and behaviours improved significantly (p < 0.01). Stigma related to help-seeking reduced significantly (p < 0.05). Social contact and drama were the most beneficial interventions identified during qualitative interviews. The results showed that the campaign was beneficial and led to improvement of attitude and behaviours related to mental health and reduction in stigma related to help-seeking. Social contact was the most effective intervention. The study had implications for future research in LMIC.

The treatment gap between the number of people with mental disorders and the number treated represents a major public health challenge. We examine this gap by socio-economic status (SES; indicated by family income and respondent education) and service sector in a cross-national analysis of community epidemiological survey data. Data come from 16 753 respondents with 12-month DSM-IV disorders from community surveys in 25 countries in the WHO World Mental Health Survey Initiative. DSM-IV anxiety, mood, or substance disorders and treatment of these disorders were assessed with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Only 13.7% of 12-month DSM-IV/CIDI cases in lower-middle-income countries, 22.0% in upper-middle-income countries, and 36.8% in high-income countries received treatment. Highest-SES respondents were somewhat more likely to receive treatment, but this was true mostly for specialty mental health treatment, where the association was positive with education (highest treatment among respondents with the highest education and a weak association of education with treatment among other respondents) but non-monotonic with income (somewhat lower treatment rates among middle-income respondents and equivalent among those with high and low incomes). The modest, but nonetheless stronger, an association of education than income with treatment raises questions about a financial barriers interpretation of the inverse association of SES with treatment, although future within-country analyses that consider contextual factors might document other important specifications. While beyond the scope of this report, such an expanded analysis could have important implications for designing interventions aimed at increasing mental disorder treatment among socio-economically disadvantaged people.

AimsMental health-related stigma and discrimination are a complex and widespread issue with negative effects on numerous aspects of life of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Research shows that social contact is the best evidence-based intervention to reduce stigma. Within the context of a rapid development of remote technology, and COVID-19-related restrictions for face-to-face contact, the aim of this paper is to categorise, compare and define indirect social contact (ISC) interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination in mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsMEDLINE, Global Health, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched using a strategy including terms related to ‘stigma and discrimination’, ‘intervention’, ‘indirect social contact’, ‘mental health’ and ‘low- and middle-income countries’. Relevant information on ISC interventions was extracted from the included articles, and a quality assessment was conducted. Emerging themes were coded using a thematic synthesis method, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken to present the results.ResultsNine studies were included in the review overall. One study was ineffective; this was not considered for the categorisation of interventions, and it was considered separately for the comparison of interventions. Of the eight effective studies included in synthesis, interventions were categorised by content, combination of stigma-reducing strategies, medium of delivery, delivery agents, target condition and population, as well as by active or passive interaction and follow-up. Most of the interventions used education and ISC. Recovery and personal experience were important content components as all studies included either one or both. Cultural adaptation and local relevance were also important considerations.ConclusionsISC interventions were effective in overall terms for both the general public and healthcare providers, including medical students. A new definition of ISC interventions in LMICs is proposed. More research and better reporting of intervention details are needed to explore the effectiveness of ISC strategies in LMICs, especially in regions where little relevant research has been conducted.

Most research on interventions to counter stigma and discrimination has focused on short-term outcomes and has been conducted in high-income settings. To synthesise what is known globally about effective interventions to reduce mental illness-based stigma and discrimination, in relation first to effectiveness in the medium and long term (minimum 4 weeks), and second to interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We searched six databases from 1980 to 2013 and conducted a multi-language Google search for quantitative studies addressing the research questions. Effect sizes were calculated from eligible studies where possible, and narrative syntheses conducted. Subgroup analysis compared interventions with and without social contact. Eighty studies (n = 422 653) were included in the review. For studies with medium or long-term follow-up (72, of which 21 had calculable effect sizes) median standardised mean differences were 0.54 for knowledge and -0.26 for stigmatising attitudes. Those containing social contact (direct or indirect) were not more effective than those without. The 11 LMIC studies were all from middle-income countries. Effect sizes were rarely calculable for behavioural outcomes or in LMIC studies. There is modest evidence for the effectiveness of anti-stigma interventions beyond 4 weeks follow-up in terms of increasing knowledge and reducing stigmatising attitudes. Evidence does not support the view that social contact is the more effective type of intervention for improving attitudes in the medium to long term. Methodologically strong research is needed on which to base decisions on investment in stigma-reducing interventions.