Development of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework in the healthcare system setting: A modified Delphi study.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-01-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0316999
Dristy Gurung, Bhawana Subedi, Brandon A Kohrt, Syed Shabab Wahid, Sauharda Rai, Graham Thornicroft, Petra C Gronholm
{"title":"Development of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework in the healthcare system setting: A modified Delphi study.","authors":"Dristy Gurung, Bhawana Subedi, Brandon A Kohrt, Syed Shabab Wahid, Sauharda Rai, Graham Thornicroft, Petra C Gronholm","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0316999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a worldwide dearth in literature on the nature, causes, and consequences of structural stigma in mental healthcare. This study aimed to address this gap by exploring key components for measuring structural stigma in healthcare system settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a modified Delphi method consisting of 3 rounds with global experts (stigma researchers, persons with lived experiences of mental health conditions (PWLEs), and policymakers). In the first round, indicators identified through a literature review (n = 39 studies) were appraised through expert consultation workshops with 22 panellists, including 54.5% women, 41% PWLEs, and 68.2% from low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Round 2 (n = 53 panellists; 51% women, 8.3% PWLEs, and 56.6% from LMICs) involved ranking indicators through an online survey, and Round 3 (n = 58 panellists; 46% women, 21.7% PWLEs, and 60.4% from LMICs) involved re-ranking the results from Round 2. Smith's salience index was calculated to measure consensus and Kendall's coefficient of concordance to determine the degree of agreement. Narrative opinions and feedback from panellists during all three Delphi rounds were also sought.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A list of indicators within five core measurement domains was identified in Round 1. Round 2 results were heterogeneous as indicated by the low to moderate salience of most indicators. Round 3 resulted in 4-5 indicators in each domain, that were ranked as highly salient by the expert panellists. Experts also provided narrative feedback on the definition of structural stigma, barriers to its measurement, domain-specific comments, and indicators-specific comments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The framework aids in defining mental health-related structural stigma in healthcare and framing it in terms of inequities within healthcare system structures. These structures result in negative experiences of PWLEs and limit their access to quality healthcare. This conceptualization, informed by PWLE and stakeholders in LMICs, makes it easier to measure structural stigma and monitor changes in diverse healthcare settings around the world.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 1","pages":"e0316999"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11785284/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316999","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is a worldwide dearth in literature on the nature, causes, and consequences of structural stigma in mental healthcare. This study aimed to address this gap by exploring key components for measuring structural stigma in healthcare system settings.

Methods: We used a modified Delphi method consisting of 3 rounds with global experts (stigma researchers, persons with lived experiences of mental health conditions (PWLEs), and policymakers). In the first round, indicators identified through a literature review (n = 39 studies) were appraised through expert consultation workshops with 22 panellists, including 54.5% women, 41% PWLEs, and 68.2% from low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Round 2 (n = 53 panellists; 51% women, 8.3% PWLEs, and 56.6% from LMICs) involved ranking indicators through an online survey, and Round 3 (n = 58 panellists; 46% women, 21.7% PWLEs, and 60.4% from LMICs) involved re-ranking the results from Round 2. Smith's salience index was calculated to measure consensus and Kendall's coefficient of concordance to determine the degree of agreement. Narrative opinions and feedback from panellists during all three Delphi rounds were also sought.

Results: A list of indicators within five core measurement domains was identified in Round 1. Round 2 results were heterogeneous as indicated by the low to moderate salience of most indicators. Round 3 resulted in 4-5 indicators in each domain, that were ranked as highly salient by the expert panellists. Experts also provided narrative feedback on the definition of structural stigma, barriers to its measurement, domain-specific comments, and indicators-specific comments.

Conclusion: The framework aids in defining mental health-related structural stigma in healthcare and framing it in terms of inequities within healthcare system structures. These structures result in negative experiences of PWLEs and limit their access to quality healthcare. This conceptualization, informed by PWLE and stakeholders in LMICs, makes it easier to measure structural stigma and monitor changes in diverse healthcare settings around the world.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信