Feasibility and Applicability of Implementing the Framework for Comprehensive Understanding of Structural Stigma in Mental Healthcare Systems: A Case Example of Nepal

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Dristy Gurung, Bhawana Subedi, Binita Acharya, Mani Neupane, Brandon A. Kohrt, Graham Thornicroft, Petra C. Gronholm
{"title":"Feasibility and Applicability of Implementing the Framework for Comprehensive Understanding of Structural Stigma in Mental Healthcare Systems: A Case Example of Nepal","authors":"Dristy Gurung,&nbsp;Bhawana Subedi,&nbsp;Binita Acharya,&nbsp;Mani Neupane,&nbsp;Brandon A. Kohrt,&nbsp;Graham Thornicroft,&nbsp;Petra C. Gronholm","doi":"10.1111/hex.70170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Mental health-related structural stigma is a multifaceted issue that significantly impacts access to quality mental healthcare, particularly in low-resource settings like Nepal. Therefore, there is a clear need to understand the complexities and identify gaps for targeted interventions through evaluations of various dimensions of structural stigma within healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and applicability of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework through its implementation in Nepal's healthcare system.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving data mapping, key informant interviews and rating exercises with diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, health workers and people with lived experience (PWLEs). A visual analogue scale or Red/Amber/Green (RAG) rating scale was used to rate each indicator within the framework for the level of structural stigma based on the mapped information and their experiences. Data collection was carried out from May to June 2024.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty key informants were interviewed for this exercise. Most indicators within the framework were endorsed as yellow, followed by red by participants referring to mid to high levels of structural stigma within the healthcare system. The findings also revealed that the stakeholders perceived the framework as acceptable and applicable for measuring mental health-related structural stigma in the healthcare system. However, challenges were noted regarding the clarity of some indicators, limitations of the three-coloured visual analogue rating and the need for comparator conditions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The study underscores the measurement framework's value as a tool for identifying and addressing structural stigma in a mental healthcare system in a low-resource setting. Stakeholder engagement and contextual adaptation are crucial for its successful implementation. The insights gained can inform structural reforms and improve mental health service delivery, ultimately promoting greater equity and access for PWLEs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>This framework being assessed in this study (FOCUS-MHS) was developed through extensive consultation with People with Lived Experiences (PWLEs) in Nepal and globally with the Global Mental Health Peer Network along with other stakeholders. Identification of documents, policies and studies, along with qualitative information mapped within the indicators, was informed by PWLEs involved in local study sites and by policymakers and health administrators. The reflections of the study participants—PWLEs, health administrators and policymakers, have guided further refinement of the framework for future use.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70170","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70170","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Mental health-related structural stigma is a multifaceted issue that significantly impacts access to quality mental healthcare, particularly in low-resource settings like Nepal. Therefore, there is a clear need to understand the complexities and identify gaps for targeted interventions through evaluations of various dimensions of structural stigma within healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and applicability of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework through its implementation in Nepal's healthcare system.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving data mapping, key informant interviews and rating exercises with diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, health workers and people with lived experience (PWLEs). A visual analogue scale or Red/Amber/Green (RAG) rating scale was used to rate each indicator within the framework for the level of structural stigma based on the mapped information and their experiences. Data collection was carried out from May to June 2024.

Results

Twenty key informants were interviewed for this exercise. Most indicators within the framework were endorsed as yellow, followed by red by participants referring to mid to high levels of structural stigma within the healthcare system. The findings also revealed that the stakeholders perceived the framework as acceptable and applicable for measuring mental health-related structural stigma in the healthcare system. However, challenges were noted regarding the clarity of some indicators, limitations of the three-coloured visual analogue rating and the need for comparator conditions.

Conclusion

The study underscores the measurement framework's value as a tool for identifying and addressing structural stigma in a mental healthcare system in a low-resource setting. Stakeholder engagement and contextual adaptation are crucial for its successful implementation. The insights gained can inform structural reforms and improve mental health service delivery, ultimately promoting greater equity and access for PWLEs.

Patient Public Contribution

This framework being assessed in this study (FOCUS-MHS) was developed through extensive consultation with People with Lived Experiences (PWLEs) in Nepal and globally with the Global Mental Health Peer Network along with other stakeholders. Identification of documents, policies and studies, along with qualitative information mapped within the indicators, was informed by PWLEs involved in local study sites and by policymakers and health administrators. The reflections of the study participants—PWLEs, health administrators and policymakers, have guided further refinement of the framework for future use.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
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