Self-Stigma Reduction Interventions for People Living with HIV/AIDS and Their Families: A Systematic Review

Ma, Haixia; Chan, Zenobia C.Y.; Loke, Alice Yuen

doi:10.1007/s10461-018-2304-1

Cited by 75 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No evidence (i.e., systematic reviews or primary intervention studies) was identified for stigma-reduction directly in relation to COVID-19, SARS/MERS, influenza or Ebola. Most reviews included evidence from studies using a broad range of quantitative designs (generally this included randomised-control trials or RCTs) (Clement et al, 2013;Mehta et al, 2015;Hanisch et al, 2016;Feyissa et al, 2019;Ma et al, 2019;Pantelic et al, 2019), one focused on RCTs specifically (Büchter and Messer, 2017), and some included evidence from quantitative, qualitative and/or mixed methods studies (Sermrittirong et al, 2014;Sommerland et al, 2017;Heim et al, 2018;Andersson et al, 2019;Mills et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of the systematic reviews providing evidence for this review are presented in Table 1 (added details in online Supplementary Materials). These reviews reported on the effectiveness of anti-stigma interventions in relation to leprosy (Sermrittirong et al 2014), tuberculosis (Sommerland et al 2017), HIV/AIDS (Andersson et al 2019;Feyissa et al 2019;Ma et al 2019;Pantelic et al 2019), and mental illness (Büchter & Messer 2017;Clement et al 2013;7 Hanisch et al 2016;Heim et al 2018;Mehta et al 2015;Mills et al 2020). In terms of stigma, most reviews focused on general stigma in relation to the condition (Clement et al 2013;Feyissa et al 2019;Hanisch et al 2016;Heim et al 2018;Ma et al 2019;Mehta et al 2015;Pantelic et al 2019;Sermrittirong et al 2014;Sommerland et al 2017), but self-stigma (Büchter & Messer 2017;Mills et al 2020), and enacted, anticipated or internalised stigma (Andersson et al 2019) were also considered.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These reviews reported on the effectiveness of anti-stigma interventions in relation to leprosy (Sermrittirong et al 2014), tuberculosis (Sommerland et al 2017), HIV/AIDS (Andersson et al 2019;Feyissa et al 2019;Ma et al 2019;Pantelic et al 2019), and mental illness (Büchter & Messer 2017;Clement et al 2013;7 Hanisch et al 2016;Heim et al 2018;Mehta et al 2015;Mills et al 2020). In terms of stigma, most reviews focused on general stigma in relation to the condition (Clement et al 2013;Feyissa et al 2019;Hanisch et al 2016;Heim et al 2018;Ma et al 2019;Mehta et al 2015;Pantelic et al 2019;Sermrittirong et al 2014;Sommerland et al 2017), but self-stigma (Büchter & Messer 2017;Mills et al 2020), and enacted, anticipated or internalised stigma (Andersson et al 2019) were also considered. Some reviews focused on stigma in specific target groups or settings; namely affected persons and their families (Andersson et al 2019;Büchter & Messer 2017;Ma et al 2019), healthcare workers (Feyissa et al 2019;Heim et al 2018), or low-and middle-income countries (Heim et al 2018;Mehta et al 2015;Pantelic et al 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of stigma, most reviews focused on general stigma in relation to the condition (Clement et al 2013;Feyissa et al 2019;Hanisch et al 2016;Heim et al 2018;Ma et al 2019;Mehta et al 2015;Pantelic et al 2019;Sermrittirong et al 2014;Sommerland et al 2017), but self-stigma (Büchter & Messer 2017;Mills et al 2020), and enacted, anticipated or internalised stigma (Andersson et al 2019) were also considered. Some reviews focused on stigma in specific target groups or settings; namely affected persons and their families (Andersson et al 2019;Büchter & Messer 2017;Ma et al 2019), healthcare workers (Feyissa et al 2019;Heim et al 2018), or low-and middle-income countries (Heim et al 2018;Mehta et al 2015;Pantelic et al 2019). No evidence (i.e., systematic reviews or primary intervention studies) was identified for stigma-reduction directly in relation to COVID-19, SARS/MERS, influenza, or Ebola.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations

Gronholm

Nosè

Brakel

et al. 2021

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials. Methods Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO ‘Evidence to Decision’ framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677). Results The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders. Conclusions These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations

Gronholm

Nosè

Brakel

et al. 2021

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reaching the goal of eradication, or at least ending the pandemic is nowhere on the horizon. There is still a long way to go, not only to stem the spread of the disease, but to ease its effects on families, which include household economic strain, poor adult physical and mental health, and the social isolation of stigma and self‐stigma (Ma, Chan, & Loke, 2019; Meinck et al., 2017; Rochat, Netsi, Redinger, & Stein, 2017). Given the long history of HIV and these punishing outcomes, one must ask: Why has it been so hard to mitigate the effects of HIV and end the spread of the virus?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

New Directions for the Consideration of HIV: Heterogeneity and the Cognition of Time

Tan

2020

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been almost 40 years since HIV emerged in the human population with an alarming impact in 1981, quickly reaching pandemic proportions. Reaching the goal of eradication, or at least ending the pandemic, however, has not been as easy as hoped. To better understand and therefore better address the persistence and often devastating effects of this now chronic disease, the heterogeneity of HIV—in the virus‐human and human–human relationships it engages—is parsed in discussions of the groups affected and the multiple factors that drive the diverse effects of the disease, both of which make treatment and prevention of the disease highly challenging. The construct of time cognition is then considered as a heretofore unexplored factor that may inform our understanding of HIV‐relevant behaviors.

show abstract

Communicable Diseases

Schoenfarber¹,

Langan²

2023

Essential Clinical Social Work Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-Stigma Reduction Interventions for People Living with HIV/AIDS and Their Families: A Systematic Review

Cited by 75 publications

References 65 publications

Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations

Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations

New Directions for the Consideration of HIV: Heterogeneity and the Cognition of Time

Communicable Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About