Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30764817›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2019

Out of the silos: identifying cross-cutting features of health-related stigma to advance measurement and intervention.

Wim H van Brakel, Janine Cataldo, Sandeep Grover, Brandon A Kohrt, Laura Nyblade, Melissa Stockton, Edwin Wouters, Lawrence H Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. From language matters to stigma-free communication in diabetes: Evolution, challenges, and next steps.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Wim H van BrakelNLR, Wibautstraat 137k, 1097DN, Amsterdam, Netherlands. w.v.brakel@leprastichting.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0277-2907
Janine CataldoDepartment of Physiological Nursing, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, 2 Koret Way, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0610, USA.
Sandeep GroverDepartment of Psychiatry, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Brandon A KohrtDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Laura NybladeRTI International, Washington, DC, USA.
Melissa StocktonEpidemiology Department, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Edwin WoutersCentre for Longitudinal & Life Course Studies, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Lawrence H YangCollege of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Reducing Barriers to Mental Health Task SharingK01MH104310 · NIMH · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KOHRT, BRANDON ALAN · 2014 to 2018
$908k
Optimizing Provider Attitudes and Competence in Learning Mental Health Systems (OPAL)R21MH111280 · NIMH · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GIRMA, ESHETU, KOHRT, BRANDON ALAN · 2016 to 2017
$369k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH104310NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH111280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany health conditions perceived to be contagious, dangerous or incurable, or resulting in clearly visible signs, share a common attribute - an association with stigma and discrimination. While the etiology of stigma may differ between conditions and, sometimes, cultural settings, the manifestations and psychosocial consequences of stigma and discrimination are remarkably similar. However, the vast majority of studies measuring stigma or addressing stigma through interventions employ a disease-specific approach. MAIN BODY: The current paper opposes this siloed approach and advocates a generic concept of 'health-related stigma' in both stigma measurement and stigma interventions. Employing a conceptual model adapted from Weiss, the current paper demonstrates the commonalities among several major stigmatized conditions by examining how several stigma measurement instruments, such as the Social Distance Scale, Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue, Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness, and Berger stigma scale, and stigma reduction interventions, such as information-based approaches, contact with affected persons, (peer) counselling, and skills building and empowerment, were used successfully across a variety of conditions to measure or address stigma. The results demonstrate that 'health-related stigma' is a viable concept with clearly identifiable characteristics that are similar across a variety of stigmatized health conditions in very diverse cultures.

conclusionA more generic approach to the study of health-related stigma opens up important practical opportunities - cross-cutting measurement and intervention tools are resource saving and easier to use for personnel working with multiple conditions, allow for comparison between conditions, and recognize the intersectionality of many types of stigma. Further research is needed to build additional evidence demonstrating the advantages and effectiveness of cross-condition approaches to stigma measurement and interventions.

Indexed as

Social StigmaFemaleHumansMalecross-cutting approachesdisabilitiesHealth-related stigmaHIVinterventionsleprosymeasurementmental healthneglected tropical diseasestuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID30764817
PMCPMC6376667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.