Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34016166›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2021

Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC).

Gianfranco Zuaboni, Timon Elmer, Franziska Rabenschlag, Kolja Heumann, Susanne Jaeger, Bernd Kozel, Candelaria I Mahlke, Anastasia Theodoridou, Matthias Jaeger, Nicolas Rüsch

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
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

10 authors.

Gianfranco ZuaboniSanatorium Kilchberg AG, Psychiatric and Psychotherapy Hospital, Alte Landstrasse 70, 8802, Kilchberg, Switzerland. g.zuaboni@sanatorium-kilchberg.ch.
Timon ElmerUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Franziska RabenschlagPsychiatric University Clinics Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kolja HeumannDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University Brandenburg, Neuruppin, Germany.
Susanne JaegerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy I, Ulm University, ZfP Südwürttemberg, Ravensburg, Germany.
Bernd KozelUniversity Psychiatric Services Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Candelaria I MahlkeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Anastasia TheodoridouDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias JaegerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nicolas RüschDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy II, Ulm University and BKH Günzburg, Ulm/Günzburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare professionals can be a source of stigma and discrimination for people with mental illness, and anti-stigma programs are needed for this target group. However, there is no validated German language scale to assess attitudes of healthcare professionals towards people with mental illness. This study had the aim to validate the German language version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), a self-report measure of stigmatizing attitudes.

methodsStaff (n = 392) on general psychiatric inpatient wards (excluding child, forensic and geriatric psychiatry) at five psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland (n = 3) and Germany (n = 2) participated in the study. The internal consistency of the OMS-HC was examined as well as its factor structure using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. To assess the scale's concurrent validity, we used the Social Distance Scale.

resultsInternal consistency for the OMS-HC total score was good (α = 0.74), acceptable for the subscales Attitudes (α = 0.62) and Social Distance (α = 0.69), and poor for the Disclosure subscale (α = 0.55). The original three-factor structure fit our data well. The OMS-HC total score and the Social Distance subscale score were significantly correlated with the Social Distance Scale, supporting concurrent validity.

conclusionThe German version of the OMS-HC demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and can be recommended for future research and intervention evaluation.

Indexed as

LanguageMental DisordersAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelChildGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSocial StigmaSurveys and QuestionnairesAttitudesMental illnessPsychometricsRecoverySocial distanceStigmaTherapeutic relationship

Identifiers

PMID34016166
PMCPMC8139058

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.