ArticlePeerJ2022
Stigmatization towards healthcare personnel during the first COVID-19 wave in Central and Northern Mexico.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social Stigma Associated with COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers: A Concept Analysis.Journal of caring sciences · 2025Review
- Depression and anxiety in health human resources during the first COVID-19 wave in northern Peru: a multicenter study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evidence all over the world shows an alarming increase in the stigmatization of health personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to explore possible psychological factors that help explain the disposition to stigmatize health personnel in the central and northern regions of Mexico. Two studies explore possible psychological factors to explain the disposition to stigmatize healthcare personnel (HP) in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic. In study one, 520 participants responded to three instruments that measure the disposition to stigmatize, the perceived contagion risk, and the positive beliefs towards HP. Results showed a generalized low disposition to stigmatization, where only a small percentage obtained high scores. A regression analysis identified that stigmatization towards HP can derive mainly from the perception of risk of contagion, although positive beliefs of HP decrease this disposition. The second study extends this finding by analyzing responses of 286 participants to seven instruments measuring factors hypothesized as predictors towards stigmatization: uncertainty generated by the pandemic, selfish strategies to face off the pandemic, social capital, trust in institutions, perceived vulnerability of contagion, perceived risk of contagion, and positive beliefs towards HP. A path analysis reveals that the main predictor of stigmatization is the perceived risk of contagion, increased by the strategy of selfishness, and the uncertainty generated by the pandemic. These results are discussed emphasizing the importance of cooperation and community ties to prevent the stigmatization of HP in the context of sanitary emergencies generated by contagious diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.