减少初级卫生保健专业人员心理健康污名的干预措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

3区 综合性期刊
Lazzat Zhamaliyeva, Nurgul Ablakimova, Assemgul Batyrova, Galina Veklenko, Andrej M Grjibovski, Sandugash Kudaibergenova, Nursultan Seksenbayev
{"title":"减少初级卫生保健专业人员心理健康污名的干预措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lazzat Zhamaliyeva, Nurgul Ablakimova, Assemgul Batyrova, Galina Veklenko, Andrej M Grjibovski, Sandugash Kudaibergenova, Nursultan Seksenbayev","doi":"10.3390/ijerph22091441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with mental health conditions are common among healthcare professionals in primary healthcare (PHC) settings, posing a major barrier to early diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing mental health-related stigma among PHC professionals (general practitioners, nurses, community health workers, and allied providers). Eligibility was restricted to interventional studies targeting PHC staff; non-clinical populations and students without clinical practice were excluded. Comparators included usual training, waitlist control, or pre-post evaluation. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251074412).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, of which three contributed to the quantitative synthesis. Interventions included educational, contact-based, and multicomponent approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using tools appropriate to study design. Interventions generally improved knowledge and attitudes and, to a lesser extent, behavioral intentions. Meta-analysis of pre-post changes using the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) demonstrated a significant reduction in stigma (MD = -0.27, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.14; <i>p</i> < 0.001; I<sup>2</sup> = 91%). A difference-in-differences analysis of studies with intervention and control groups confirmed this effect with moderate heterogeneity (MD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.11; <i>p</i> < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 50%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Contact-based and multicomponent interventions were associated with stronger and more sustained effects. The main limitations of the evidence were short follow-up periods, reliance on self-reported outcomes, methodological heterogeneity, and the possibility of publication bias. Our findings suggest that reducing stigma among PHC professionals can enhance patient engagement, timely diagnosis, and quality of care in routine clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49056,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health","volume":"22 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12469428/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions to Reduce Mental Health Stigma Among Health Care Professionals in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lazzat Zhamaliyeva, Nurgul Ablakimova, Assemgul Batyrova, Galina Veklenko, Andrej M Grjibovski, Sandugash Kudaibergenova, Nursultan Seksenbayev\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ijerph22091441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with mental health conditions are common among healthcare professionals in primary healthcare (PHC) settings, posing a major barrier to early diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing mental health-related stigma among PHC professionals (general practitioners, nurses, community health workers, and allied providers). Eligibility was restricted to interventional studies targeting PHC staff; non-clinical populations and students without clinical practice were excluded. Comparators included usual training, waitlist control, or pre-post evaluation. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251074412).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, of which three contributed to the quantitative synthesis. Interventions included educational, contact-based, and multicomponent approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using tools appropriate to study design. Interventions generally improved knowledge and attitudes and, to a lesser extent, behavioral intentions. Meta-analysis of pre-post changes using the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) demonstrated a significant reduction in stigma (MD = -0.27, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.14; <i>p</i> < 0.001; I<sup>2</sup> = 91%). A difference-in-differences analysis of studies with intervention and control groups confirmed this effect with moderate heterogeneity (MD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.11; <i>p</i> < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 50%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Contact-based and multicomponent interventions were associated with stronger and more sustained effects. The main limitations of the evidence were short follow-up periods, reliance on self-reported outcomes, methodological heterogeneity, and the possibility of publication bias. Our findings suggest that reducing stigma among PHC professionals can enhance patient engagement, timely diagnosis, and quality of care in routine clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"22 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12469428/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22091441\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22091441","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对精神疾病患者的污名化态度在初级卫生保健(PHC)环境中的卫生保健专业人员中很常见,这对早期诊断、适当治疗和康复构成了主要障碍。方法:本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了旨在减少初级保健专业人员(全科医生、护士、社区卫生工作者和相关提供者)心理健康相关污名的干预措施的有效性。资格仅限于针对初级保健人员的干预性研究;非临床人群和没有临床实践的学生被排除在外。比较对象包括常规培训、候补名单控制或前后评估。按照PRISMA指南对PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science进行系统检索,并在PROSPERO中注册(CRD420251074412)。结果:25篇研究符合纳入标准,其中3篇对定量综合有贡献。干预措施包括教育、接触和多成分方法。使用适合研究设计的工具评估偏倚风险。干预措施通常改善了知识和态度,并在较小程度上改善了行为意图。使用卫生保健提供者开放思想量表(OMS-HC)对前后变化进行的荟萃分析显示,病耻感显著减少(MD = -0.27, 95% CI -0.40至-0.14;p < 0.001; I2 = 91%)。干预组和对照组研究的差异分析证实了这种效应具有中等异质性(MD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.25 ~ -0.11; p < 0.0001; I2 = 50%)。结论:基于接触和多组分干预与更强和更持久的效果相关。该证据的主要局限性是随访时间短、依赖于自我报告的结果、方法异质性和发表偏倚的可能性。我们的研究结果表明,在常规临床实践中,减少初级保健专业人员的耻辱感可以提高患者的参与度、及时诊断和护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Interventions to Reduce Mental Health Stigma Among Health Care Professionals in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Interventions to Reduce Mental Health Stigma Among Health Care Professionals in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Interventions to Reduce Mental Health Stigma Among Health Care Professionals in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Interventions to Reduce Mental Health Stigma Among Health Care Professionals in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with mental health conditions are common among healthcare professionals in primary healthcare (PHC) settings, posing a major barrier to early diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and recovery.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing mental health-related stigma among PHC professionals (general practitioners, nurses, community health workers, and allied providers). Eligibility was restricted to interventional studies targeting PHC staff; non-clinical populations and students without clinical practice were excluded. Comparators included usual training, waitlist control, or pre-post evaluation. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251074412).

Results: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, of which three contributed to the quantitative synthesis. Interventions included educational, contact-based, and multicomponent approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using tools appropriate to study design. Interventions generally improved knowledge and attitudes and, to a lesser extent, behavioral intentions. Meta-analysis of pre-post changes using the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) demonstrated a significant reduction in stigma (MD = -0.27, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.14; p < 0.001; I2 = 91%). A difference-in-differences analysis of studies with intervention and control groups confirmed this effect with moderate heterogeneity (MD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.11; p < 0.0001; I2 = 50%).

Conclusions: Contact-based and multicomponent interventions were associated with stronger and more sustained effects. The main limitations of the evidence were short follow-up periods, reliance on self-reported outcomes, methodological heterogeneity, and the possibility of publication bias. Our findings suggest that reducing stigma among PHC professionals can enhance patient engagement, timely diagnosis, and quality of care in routine clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14422
期刊介绍: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) (ISSN 1660-4601) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes, and short communications in the interdisciplinary area of environmental health sciences and public health. It links several scientific disciplines including biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, cellular and molecular biology, chemistry, computer science, ecology, engineering, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, microbiology, oncology, pathology, pharmacology, and toxicology, in an integrated fashion, to address critical issues related to environmental quality and public health. Therefore, IJERPH focuses on the publication of scientific and technical information on the impacts of natural phenomena and anthropogenic factors on the quality of our environment, the interrelationships between environmental health and the quality of life, as well as the socio-cultural, political, economic, and legal considerations related to environmental stewardship and public health. The 2018 IJERPH Outstanding Reviewer Award has been launched! This award acknowledge those who have generously dedicated their time to review manuscripts submitted to IJERPH. See full details at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/awards.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信