ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Psychometric properties and validation of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers in Slovenia.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health-related stigma among healthcare professionals is a well-documented global concern, contributing to delayed help-seeking, suboptimal treatment adherence, and poorer patient outcomes. In Slovenia, despite growing public and policy efforts to reduce stigma, no validated instrument existed to measure such attitudes among healthcare providers. Objective: We aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC). Methods: A diverse sample of 280 Slovenian healthcare professionals completed the OMS-HC. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were used to assess the structure of the scale, and reliability was examined through model-based indices, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity was evaluated using the MICA-4 scale. Results: Initial confirmatory factor analysis indicated relatively poor model fit for the original 15-item, three-factor model. Subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the use of either a 12- or 14-item version. Both demonstrated strong general factor reliability (OmegaH > 0.69; ECV ≈ 0.60), with the 12-item version offering slightly better model fit, while the 14-item version retained broader conceptual content. Test-retest reliability was good for the total score and good to moderate for the subscales. Moderate positive correlations with the MICA-4 scale confirmed convergent validity. Conclusions: The Slovenian OMS-HC shows good psychometric properties in both its 12- and 14-item formats and is suitable for assessing stigma among healthcare professionals. We recommend the 12-item version for research contexts where parsimony is prioritized, and the 14-item version when broader clinical coverage is needed. Its validation addresses an important methodological gap in Slovenia and provides a reliable tool for stigma monitoring and intervention planning.
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.