ArticleBMJ public health2025
Reducing stigma towards incarcerated populations: a systematic review of intervention studies.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing stigma or discrimination against people with lived experience of incarceration (PLEIC), and to assess the role of 'Key Active Ingredients (KAI)' in influencing changes in stigma-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. Design: Systematic review (registered with PROSPERO CRD42024508685). Data sources: MEDLINE, Emcare, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HeinOnline, Sociology Source Ultimate and Web of Science were searched from January 2010 to September 2024. Eligibility criteria: Included studies were intervention-based, published in English from 2010 to present, where at least one primary or secondary outcome was stigma-related. There were no restrictions on context, type or level of stigma or study populations. Data extraction and synthesis: We adapted the KAI model for effective anti-stigma interventions as an a priori framework. An 'Active Ingredient Score (AIS)' was developed to measure the impact of KAIs on each anti-stigma intervention. Quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias and the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistical Assessment and Review Instrument. Results: 3926 articles were screened, of which 16 were included, covering 8815 participants across five countries. No studies from low or middle-income countries were found. 12 studies investigated the post-intervention impact on knowledge (positive=11), 12 investigated the impact on attitude (positive=10) and 8 investigated the impact on behaviour (positive=2) towards PLEIC. Of the eight KAIs, only 'myth-busting' correlated with greater post-intervention effects on knowledge and attitudes. Both online and face-to-face interventions were equally effective. Overall, study methods were strong for the included randomised control trials (n=3), but weak to moderate for the non-randomised interventions (n=13). Conclusion: Anti-stigma interventions are highly effective at impacting stigma-related knowledge and attitudes towards PLEIC, with myth-busting emerging as an important component. More research, particularly involving women and adolescents, is needed to identify ways to achieve positive impacts on stigma-related behaviour, with longer study follow-up durations.
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.