ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Feasibility and Applicability of Implementing the Framework for Comprehensive Understanding of Structural Stigma in Mental Healthcare Systems: A Case Example of Nepal.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. 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.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMental health-related structural stigma is a multifaceted issue that significantly impacts access to quality mental healthcare, particularly in low-resource settings like Nepal. Therefore, there is a clear need to understand the complexities and identify gaps for targeted interventions through evaluations of various dimensions of structural stigma within healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and applicability of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework through its implementation in Nepal's healthcare system.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was employed, involving data mapping, key informant interviews and rating exercises with diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, health workers and people with lived experience (PWLEs). A visual analogue scale or Red/Amber/Green (RAG) rating scale was used to rate each indicator within the framework for the level of structural stigma based on the mapped information and their experiences. Data collection was carried out from May to June 2024.
resultsTwenty key informants were interviewed for this exercise. Most indicators within the framework were endorsed as yellow, followed by red by participants referring to mid to high levels of structural stigma within the healthcare system. The findings also revealed that the stakeholders perceived the framework as acceptable and applicable for measuring mental health-related structural stigma in the healthcare system. However, challenges were noted regarding the clarity of some indicators, limitations of the three-coloured visual analogue rating and the need for comparator conditions.
conclusionThe study underscores the measurement framework's value as a tool for identifying and addressing structural stigma in a mental healthcare system in a low-resource setting. Stakeholder engagement and contextual adaptation are crucial for its successful implementation. The insights gained can inform structural reforms and improve mental health service delivery, ultimately promoting greater equity and access for PWLEs. PATIENT PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This framework being assessed in this study (FOCUS-MHS) was developed through extensive consultation with People with Lived Experiences (PWLEs) in Nepal and globally with the Global Mental Health Peer Network along with other stakeholders. Identification of documents, policies and studies, along with qualitative information mapped within the indicators, was informed by PWLEs involved in local study sites and by policymakers and health administrators. The reflections of the study participants-PWLEs, health administrators and policymakers, have guided further refinement of the framework for future use.
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.