Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38536846›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Social contact as a strategy to reduce stigma in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and expert perspectives.

Carlijn Damsté, Petra C Gronholm, Tjitske de Groot, Dristy Gurung, Akerke Makhmud, Ruth M H Peters, Kim Hartog

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Carlijn DamstéIQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1446-7333
Petra C GronholmHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Centre for Global Mental Health and Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4482-6993
Tjitske de GrootDepartment of Development & Education of Youth in Diverse Societies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dristy GurungHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Centre for Global Mental Health and Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Akerke MakhmudCentre for Global Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8971-7267
Ruth M H PetersFaculty of Science, Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kim HartogDepartment of Research and Development, War Child, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7404-524X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social contact (SC) has been identified as a promising strategy for stigma reduction. Different types of SC exist. Various scholars defined positive factors to strengthen SC. This study aims to investigate the application and effectiveness of SC as a strategy to reduce stigmatisation across stigmas, settings and populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We specifically examine the use of positive factors. A systematic review was conducted in twelve electronic databases using key terms related to stigma AND social contact AND intervention AND LMICs. Data were synthesised narratively. Study quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were used with first/corresponding authors of included publications to investigate their practical experiences with SC. Forty-four studies (55 publications) were identified. Various stigmas (n = 16) were targeted, including mental health (43%). Indirect (n = 18) and direct contact (n = 16) were used most frequently, followed by collaboration, imagined and vicarious contact, or a combination. The most applied additional strategy was education. Almost half of the studies, explicitly or implicitly, described positive factors for SC, such as PWLE training or disconfirming stereotypes. The majority suggested that SC is effective in reducing stigma, although inconsistent reporting overshadows conclusions. Perspectives of people with lived experience (PWLE) were infrequently included. Expert perspectives stressed the importance of contextualisation, PWLE participation, and evaluation of SC. This study provides an overview of SC as a stigma reduction strategy within LMICs. Conclusions about which type of SC is more effective or whether SC is more effective for a specific stigma category cannot be drawn. We recommend future research to strengthen reporting on effectiveness as well as PWLE perspective and SC processes, and to further critically examine the potential of SC. An overview of positive factors applied to strengthen SC is provided, which can stimulate reflection and guide future SC.

Identifiers

PMID38536846
PMCPMC10971769

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.