A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Implicit Stigma Toward People with Mental Illness Among Different Groups: Measurement, Extent, and Correlates.
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Implicit Stigma Toward People with Mental Illness Among Different Groups: Measurement, Extent, and Correlates.","authors":"Yila Ren, Sheng Wang, Xiangqi Fu, Xiuxiu Shi","doi":"10.2147/PRBM.S503942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Implicit association tests have been extensively applied to reveal socially unacceptable and concealed stigma. Studies have explored the implicit stigma toward mental illness in specific groups, with limited comparisons across different groups. To investigate the implicit stigma toward mental illness among different groups, along with the interaction between implicit and explicit measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on PRISMA guidelines, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched from 1998 to April 18, 2024. Searches were updated through February 12, 2025. The Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) served as the quality evaluation framework, and Stata 12.0 facilitated the conduct of a meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included fifty studies in the systematic review and thirty in the meta-analysis. Most studies used \"mental illness\" or related physical illness terms as concept words, paired with emotionally contrasting attribute words. Twenty-eight studies calculated the implicit effect using an improved algorithm, while thirty-eight examined the correlations between implicit and explicit measures. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) revealed that the lowest <i>D</i> scores were observed in the general population (SMD = 0.79, <i>P</i> < 0.001), followed by healthcare providers (SMD = 1.09, <i>P</i> = 0.054), students (SMD = 1.17, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and people with mental illness (SMD = 1.20, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings indicated that the selection of concept and attribute words, as well as the processing of data measuring implicit stigma, was not standardized. No reliable correlation was found between implicit and explicit measures. Despite the heterogeneity of included studies, the general public demonstrated the most positive attitudes, while individuals with mental illness exhibited negative attitudes. Further research is required to develop personalized anti-stigma interventions for different groups and regions based on these results, particularly from the perspective of implicit stigma.</p>","PeriodicalId":20954,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Research and Behavior Management","volume":"18 ","pages":"851-875"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11989592/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Research and Behavior Management","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S503942","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Implicit association tests have been extensively applied to reveal socially unacceptable and concealed stigma. Studies have explored the implicit stigma toward mental illness in specific groups, with limited comparisons across different groups. To investigate the implicit stigma toward mental illness among different groups, along with the interaction between implicit and explicit measurements.
Methods: Based on PRISMA guidelines, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched from 1998 to April 18, 2024. Searches were updated through February 12, 2025. The Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) served as the quality evaluation framework, and Stata 12.0 facilitated the conduct of a meta-analysis.
Results: The analysis included fifty studies in the systematic review and thirty in the meta-analysis. Most studies used "mental illness" or related physical illness terms as concept words, paired with emotionally contrasting attribute words. Twenty-eight studies calculated the implicit effect using an improved algorithm, while thirty-eight examined the correlations between implicit and explicit measures. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) revealed that the lowest D scores were observed in the general population (SMD = 0.79, P < 0.001), followed by healthcare providers (SMD = 1.09, P = 0.054), students (SMD = 1.17, P < 0.001) and people with mental illness (SMD = 1.20, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: The findings indicated that the selection of concept and attribute words, as well as the processing of data measuring implicit stigma, was not standardized. No reliable correlation was found between implicit and explicit measures. Despite the heterogeneity of included studies, the general public demonstrated the most positive attitudes, while individuals with mental illness exhibited negative attitudes. Further research is required to develop personalized anti-stigma interventions for different groups and regions based on these results, particularly from the perspective of implicit stigma.
内隐联想测试已广泛应用于揭示社会不可接受的和隐藏的耻辱。研究探索了特定群体对精神疾病的隐性耻辱,不同群体之间的比较有限。目的:探讨不同群体对精神疾病的内隐耻辱感,以及内隐和外显测量之间的相互作用。方法:基于PRISMA指南,检索Web of Science、Embase、PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane Library和PsycINFO从1998年到2024年4月18日的文献。搜索更新到2025年2月12日。医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)作为质量评价框架,Stata 12.0促进了meta分析的进行。结果:系统评价纳入50项研究,荟萃分析纳入30项研究。大多数研究使用“精神疾病”或相关的身体疾病术语作为概念词,搭配情感对比的定语。28项研究使用改进的算法计算了内隐效应,38项研究检查了内隐和外显测量之间的相关性。综合标准化平均差异(SMD)显示,普通人群的D得分最低(SMD = 0.79, P < 0.001),其次是医护人员(SMD = 1.09, P = 0.054)、学生(SMD = 1.17, P < 0.001)和精神疾病患者(SMD = 1.20, P < 0.001)。结论:调查结果表明,内隐病耻感的概念词、定语词的选择以及测量数据的处理都不规范。内隐测量和外显测量之间没有可靠的相关性。尽管纳入的研究存在异质性,但一般公众表现出最积极的态度,而精神疾病患者表现出消极的态度。在这些研究结果的基础上,特别是从隐性污名的角度,需要进一步研究针对不同群体和地区制定个性化的反污名干预措施。
期刊介绍:
Psychology Research and Behavior Management is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on the science of psychology and its application in behavior management to develop improved outcomes in the clinical, educational, sports and business arenas. Specific topics covered in the journal include: -Neuroscience, memory and decision making -Behavior modification and management -Clinical applications -Business and sports performance management -Social and developmental studies -Animal studies The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical studies, surveys, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.