{"title":"如何消除对精神疾病的成见:对不同利益相关者的经验进行范围界定。","authors":"Alireza Hajizadeh, Homayoun Amini, Mahdiyeh Heydari, Fatemeh Rajabi","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06220-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The stigma associated with mental health disorders (MHDs) results in delayed help-seeking, limited access to health services, suboptimal treatment, poor treatment outcomes, and an increased risk of human rights violations. This scoping review summarizes qualitative research on the lived experiences of different stakeholders regarding strategies and interventions to combat stigma for people with MHDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a six-step scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant records: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar, as well as a manual search of the reference lists. All steps, including screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and analysis, were performed independently by multiple reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. The data were synthesized based on the for-content synthesis guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 25 studies were included in this review of the 32,976 initial identified citations. The included studies were from all countries (low, middle, and high income), stigmatized disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.) and target populations (e.g., people with MHDs and their families, health care providers, the general community, and students and school members). The thematic synthesis revealed six types of interventions and strategies and 17 themes related to reducing stigma in patients on MHDs. Strategies and interventions were classified by patient (self-stigma), family (family stigma), healthcare professionals' stigma, workplace stigma, public/societal stigma, and structural type of stigma (institutional stigma).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review contributes new evidence that should be considered in future interventions and policies to reduce stigma against MHDs. Multilevel and multistakeholder strategies and interventions are needed to reduce the stigmatization of MHDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"782"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to combat stigma surrounding mental health disorders: a scoping review of the experiences of different stakeholders.\",\"authors\":\"Alireza Hajizadeh, Homayoun Amini, Mahdiyeh Heydari, Fatemeh Rajabi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12888-024-06220-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The stigma associated with mental health disorders (MHDs) results in delayed help-seeking, limited access to health services, suboptimal treatment, poor treatment outcomes, and an increased risk of human rights violations. This scoping review summarizes qualitative research on the lived experiences of different stakeholders regarding strategies and interventions to combat stigma for people with MHDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a six-step scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant records: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar, as well as a manual search of the reference lists. All steps, including screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and analysis, were performed independently by multiple reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. The data were synthesized based on the for-content synthesis guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 25 studies were included in this review of the 32,976 initial identified citations. The included studies were from all countries (low, middle, and high income), stigmatized disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.) and target populations (e.g., people with MHDs and their families, health care providers, the general community, and students and school members). The thematic synthesis revealed six types of interventions and strategies and 17 themes related to reducing stigma in patients on MHDs. Strategies and interventions were classified by patient (self-stigma), family (family stigma), healthcare professionals' stigma, workplace stigma, public/societal stigma, and structural type of stigma (institutional stigma).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review contributes new evidence that should be considered in future interventions and policies to reduce stigma against MHDs. Multilevel and multistakeholder strategies and interventions are needed to reduce the stigmatization of MHDs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"782\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549754/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06220-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06220-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:与心理健康障碍(MHDs)相关的污名化导致求助延迟、获得医疗服务的机会有限、治疗效果不理想、治疗效果不佳以及人权受侵犯的风险增加。本范围界定综述总结了不同利益相关者的生活经验定性研究,这些经验涉及为精神疾病患者消除耻辱感的策略和干预措施:本研究采用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 框架进行了六步范围界定综述。对以下电子数据库进行了全面搜索,以确定相关记录:PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science (WoS) 和 Google Scholar,以及人工检索参考文献列表。所有步骤,包括筛选符合条件的研究、数据提取和分析,均由多名审稿人独立完成,并通过讨论解决分歧。根据内容综合指南对数据进行了综合:在初步确定的 32,976 条引文中,共有 25 项研究被纳入本综述。所纳入的研究来自所有国家(低收入、中等收入和高收入国家)、被污名化的疾病(如精神分裂症、双相情感障碍等)和目标人群(如精神卫生综合症患者及其家人、医疗服务提供者、普通社区以及学生和学校成员)。专题综述揭示了六种类型的干预措施和策略,以及 17 个与减少 MHD 患者污名化相关的主题。策略和干预措施按患者(自我污名化)、家庭(家庭污名化)、医护人员污名化、工作场所污名化、公众/社会污名化和结构类型污名化(机构污名化)进行了分类:本综述提供了新的证据,应在未来的干预措施和政策中加以考虑,以减少对移动HD的成见。需要采取多层次和多方利益相关者的战略和干预措施,以减少对排雷人员的污名化。
How to combat stigma surrounding mental health disorders: a scoping review of the experiences of different stakeholders.
Background: The stigma associated with mental health disorders (MHDs) results in delayed help-seeking, limited access to health services, suboptimal treatment, poor treatment outcomes, and an increased risk of human rights violations. This scoping review summarizes qualitative research on the lived experiences of different stakeholders regarding strategies and interventions to combat stigma for people with MHDs.
Methods: This study was a six-step scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant records: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar, as well as a manual search of the reference lists. All steps, including screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and analysis, were performed independently by multiple reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. The data were synthesized based on the for-content synthesis guidelines.
Results: A total of 25 studies were included in this review of the 32,976 initial identified citations. The included studies were from all countries (low, middle, and high income), stigmatized disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.) and target populations (e.g., people with MHDs and their families, health care providers, the general community, and students and school members). The thematic synthesis revealed six types of interventions and strategies and 17 themes related to reducing stigma in patients on MHDs. Strategies and interventions were classified by patient (self-stigma), family (family stigma), healthcare professionals' stigma, workplace stigma, public/societal stigma, and structural type of stigma (institutional stigma).
Conclusions: This review contributes new evidence that should be considered in future interventions and policies to reduce stigma against MHDs. Multilevel and multistakeholder strategies and interventions are needed to reduce the stigmatization of MHDs.
期刊介绍:
BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.