Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35865307›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Stigma and Peer-Led Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jing Sun, Xunbao Yin, Changjiang Li, Wuyi Liu, Hongwei Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
19.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions to reduce self-stigma in people who use drugs: A systematic review.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jing SunSchool of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China.
Xunbao YinSchool of Teacher Education, Weifang University, Weifang, China.
Changjiang LiSchool of Psychology, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China.
Wuyi LiuSchool of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China.
Hongwei SunSchool of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China.
Weifang Medical University · CNWeifang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of our systematic review was to investigate the effect of peer-led intervention on self-stigma in individuals with mental health problems. Secondary purpose was investigating the impact of peer intervention on clinical symptoms, recovery-related outcomes, and disclosure-related outcomes. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched from 1975 to 2021. Literature databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. From the perspective of key outcomes, a meta-analysis of the effects of peer-led interventions on changing stigma was conducted. Results: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials targeting different target groups with mental health problems (e.g., adolescents, college students, family members of mentally ill persons, unemployed persons, etc.) was conducted. It was found that, at the end of the intervention, intervention had a positive effect on main outcomes such as self-stigma and stress from stigma. As for secondary outcomes, there was no significant influence on clinical symptoms. There was a positive effect on rehabilitation and empowerment, but without a statistical significance. There was a statistically significant effect on self-efficacy and professional help seeking. There was a statistically significant effect on confidentiality and disclosure-related distress in the Honest Open Proud (HOP) subgroup. There was no significant influence on confidentiality and withdrawal in the non-HOP subgroup. Conclusion: Peer-led intervention can reduce self-stigma and stigma pressure and might improve recovery and empowerment. It increases self-efficacy and willingness to seek professional help, but has no significant effect on clinical symptoms and withdrawal. HOP intervention has positive effects on disclosure-related confidentiality and pain. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021287584.

Indexed as

HOP interventionmeta-analysispeer-led interventionstigmasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35865307
PMCPMC9294224
OpenAlexW4283808699

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.