ArticlePloS one2026
Effectiveness of the Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination (READ) training on reducing stigma for medical students in Tunisia.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doctors have been identified as having a crucial role in responding to anticipated and experienced stigma of People with Mental Illness (PWMI). This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the READ (Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination), an anti-stigma training for medical students, by measuring changes in their knowledge, attitudes, and skills, in responding to patients anticipated and experienced discrimination. The Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS), the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes version 2 (MICA2), and an OSCE (Observed Structured Clinical Examination) were used to determine participants' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards PWMI before and immediately after the training. There was evidence of difference in MICA2 mean total scores in the intervention group were compared to the control group after adjusting for age, gender and MICA baseline mean total scores (MD: -7.88; p < 0.001; 95% CI: -10.23 to -3.96). Moreover, the intervention group was 4.45 times more likely to be scored "pass" in the OSCE compared to the control group (p = 0.046, 95% CI: 1.03 to 19.26) after adjusting for age, gender and OSCE baseline scores. The positive changes in students' attitudes and skills after the READ training should encourage further research on the causal pathways of this positive relationship.
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.