Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30349962›Full record

SynthesisSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2019

A systematic review of the impact of media reports of severe mental illness on stigma and discrimination, and interventions that aim to mitigate any adverse impact.

Anna M Ross, Amy J Morgan, Anthony F Jorm, Nicola J Reavley

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anna M RossCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. anross@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5114-5686
Amy J MorganCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3784-0540
Anthony F JormCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1424-4116
Nicola J ReavleyCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-8291

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review aims to summarise the evidence on the impact of news media and social media reports of severe mental illness (SMI) on stigma, and interventions that aim to mitigate any adverse impact.

methodsA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted in December 2017 to identify studies that report on the impact of media coverage or media interventions on stigma related to schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, or mental illness in general. Data were synthesised narratively.

results12 studies met inclusion criteria; seven explored the impact of news media on stigma towards SMI or general mental illness, two explored the impact of social media, while three evaluated interventions that aimed to mitigate this impact. These studies showed that positive news reports and social media posts are likely to lead to reductions in stigmatizing attitudes and negative reports and social media posts are likely to increase stigmatizing attitudes. There were a limited number of interventions aiming to mitigate the negative impact of news reports of mental illness on stigma; however, these were ineffective. Interventions with media professionals appear to be successful at reducing their stigmatizing attitudes, but can also act to increase both positive and negative reports in the media.

conclusionsGiven the limited research evidence on the impact of news and social media on stigma towards SMI, and on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to mitigate this impact, further studies of higher quality are needed in this area. Due to mixed findings, interventions with media professionals are also an area of research priority.

Indexed as

Discrimination, PsychologicalSocial ChangeSocial StigmaHumansMass MediaMental DisordersJournalismMedia interventionNews mediaSchizophreniaSevere mental illnessSocial mediaStigma

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.