A systematic review of multi-level stigma interventions: state of the science and future directions

Abstract

Background Researchers have long recognized that stigma is a global, multi-level phenomenon requiring intervention approaches that target multiple levels including individual, interpersonal, community, and structural levels. While existing interventions have produced modest reductions in stigma, their full reach and impact remain limited by a nearly exclusive focus targeting only one level of analysis. Methods We conducted the first systematic review of original research on multi-level stigma-reduction interventions. We used the following eligibility criteria for inclusion: (1) peer-reviewed, (2) contained original research, (3) published prior to initiation of search on November 30, 2017, (4) evaluated interventions that operated on more than one level, and (5) examined stigma as an outcome. We stratified and analyzed articles by several domains, including whether the research was conducted in a low-, middle-, or high-income country. Results Twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles included a range of countries (low, middle, and high income), stigmatized conditions/populations (e.g., HIV, mental health, leprosy), intervention targets (e.g., people living with a stigmatized condition, health care workers, family, and community members), and stigma reduction strategies (e.g., contact, social marketing, counseling, faith, problem solving), with most using education-based approaches. A total of 12 (50%) articles examined community-level interventions alongside interpersonal and/or intrapersonal levels, but only 1 (4%) combined a structural-level intervention with another level. Of the 24 studies, only 6 (25%) were randomized controlled trials. While most studies (17 of 24) reported statistically significant declines in at least one measure of stigma, fewer than half reported measures of practical significance (i.e., effect size); those that were reported varied widely in magnitude and were typically in the small-to-moderate range. Conclusions While there has been progress over the past decade in the development and evaluation of multi-level stigma interventions, much work remains to strengthen and expand this approach. We highlight several opportunities for new research and program development.

How Do We Balance Tensions Between COVID-19 Public Health Responses and Stigma Mitigation? Learning from HIV Research

“…The tension therefore emerges between the immediate-and faster-work of providing information in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for long-term investment in reducing social inequities. Stigma-reduction strategies for HIV and other health issues have largely targeted intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, far fewer have addressed structural factors such as legal issues, policies, and rights [36]. Interventions should address both drivers (knowledge, misinformation) and facilitators (health policies, institutional practices) [37].…”

Social and behavioral health responses to COVID-19: lessons learned from four decades of an HIV pandemic

“…Approaches to addressing stigma in the context of promoting well-being and disease prevention exist and likely provide relevant tools applicable to addressing COVID-19. Interventions to address stigma have been developed that target individuals, health care workers, communities, and social figures, which will likely find new purpose in COVID-19 (Andersson et al, 2020;Rao et al, 2019;Stangl et al, 2013).…”

HIV knowledge and stigma among dietetic students in Indonesia: implications for the nutrition education system

“…The perceived dangerousness, for example, is amenable to following swift advancement in treatment and control [24]. Therefore, several studies suggested the need to conduct multilayered intervention targeting factors at the individual, interpersonal, community, institution, and structural levels to reduce stigma [41,42].…”