ArticleBMC psychology2024
Investigating AVHs narratives through text analysis: the proposal of Dialogic Science for tackling stigmatization.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stigma and Emotion Regulation in Intimate Partner Violence: A Pilot Exploratory Study with Victims, Offenders and Experts.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAuditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) are a significant symptom of various psychological conditions, often stigmatized and misunderstood. Moving beyond traditional psychological, psychotherapeutic and psychiatric approaches, recent research shifts focus on understanding AVHs through community perspectives and the resulting stigmatization. This research approach is crucial for better support and understanding of AVHs, however it still suffers from the lack of a rigorous and shared methodology for studying and reducing stigma.
methodsOur study, part of the Italian "PsicoVoice" project, aims to investigate community discourses on AVHs, in order to observe whether and to what extent they are drivers of stigmatisation processes. Engaging 268 participants with direct (hearers) and indirect (such as relatives and professionals) experiences of AVHs, the research analyzes a corpus of 54,320 instances using MADIT: a text analysis methodology which is both qualitative and quantitative. MADIT allows for an innovative examination of the rhetorical-argumentative structures within narratives, producing an index for measuring the narratives' practical impact on people' interactions around AVHs.
resultsThe analysis revealed that the overall community discourses are predominantly shaped by absolute and personal belief-driven modalities. This way of conveying sense, even with non-necessarily-judgmental words, contributes to a stigmatizing environment for individuals with AVHs, cementing a static representation dominated by personal opinions and reducing the potential for more nuanced, diverse interactions about AVHs.
conclusionThe study's findings underscore the importance of addressing the narrative structures within community discourses. By intervening in these narratives, there is potential to shift towards a less stigmatizing social construction of AVHs. Thus, the article concludes using the results to provide some insights on how to generate these interventions. This approach could significantly impact how communities understand and interact with individuals experiencing AVHs, promoting more inclusive and supportive environments and interventions.
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.