Empathic and non-empathic routes to visuospatial perspective-taking

The present study examined whether strategy moderated the relationship between visuospatial perspective-taking and empathy. Participants (N=96) undertook both a perspective-taking task requiring speeded spatial judgements made from the perspective of an observed figure and the Empathy Quotient questionnaire, a measure of trait empathy. Perspective-taking performance was found to be related to empathy in that more empathic individuals showed facilitated performance particularly for figures sharing their own spatial orientation. This relationship was restricted to participants that reported perspective-taking by mentally transforming their spatial orientation to align with that of the figure; it was absent in those adopting an alternative strategy of transposing left and right whenever confronted with a front-view figure. Our finding that strategy moderates the relationship between empathy and visuospatial perspective-taking enables a reconciliation of the apparently inconclusive findings of previous studies and provides evidence for functionally dissociable empathic and non-empathic routes to visuospatial perspective-taking

Social contact as a strategy to reduce stigma in low- and middle-income countries:A systematic review and expert perspectives

Social contact (SC) has been identified as a promising strategy for stigma reduction. Different types of SC exist. Various scholars defined positive factors to strengthen SC. This study aims to investigate the application and effectiveness of SC as a strategy to reduce stigmatisation across stigmas, settings and populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We specifically examine the use of positive factors. A systematic review was conducted in twelve electronic databases using key terms related to stigma AND social contact AND intervention AND LMICs. Data were synthesised narratively. Study quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were used with first/corresponding authors of included publications to investigate their practical experiences with SC. Forty-four studies (55 publications) were identified. Various stigmas (n = 16) were targeted, including mental health (43%). Indirect (n = 18) and direct contact (n = 16) were used most frequently, followed by collaboration, imagined and vicarious contact, or a combination. The most applied additional strategy was education. Almost half of the studies, explicitly or implicitly, described positive factors for SC, such as PWLE training or disconfirming stereotypes. The majority suggested that SC is effective in reducing stigma, although inconsistent reporting overshadows conclusions. Perspectives of people with lived experience (PWLE) were infrequently included. Expert perspectives stressed the importance of contextualisation, PWLE participation, and evaluation of SC. This study provides an overview of SC as a stigma reduction strategy within LMICs. Conclusions about which type of SC is more effective or whether SC is more effective for a specific stigma category cannot be drawn. We recommend future research to strengthen reporting on effectiveness as well as PWLE perspective and SC processes, and to further critically examine the potential of SC. An overview of positive factors applied to strengthen SC is provided, which can stimulate reflection and guide future SC

Assessing stigma in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of scales used with children and adolescents

Introduction: Stigmatization contributes to health inequalities, impacting the wellbeing of children and adolescents negatively. Addressing stigmatization requires adequate measurement. Our systematic review synthesizes the content of scales used with children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across stigmas, and examines their comparability and level of cultural adaptation. Methods: Ten databases were systematically searched combining three sets of search terms: (i) stigma, (ii) scales, and (iii) LMICs. Studies conducted in LMICs, with a sample with mean age below 18 and reporting a minimum of one stigma scale, were eligible. We allocated scale items to four frameworks: (i) dimensions, or drivers of stigmatization; (ii) target variants, or types of stigmatization; (iii) socio-ecological levels, and (iv) cross-cultural equivalence, or scale adaptation to context/population. Based on percentages, we compared scale content per age cohort, stigma status, region, and stigma category. Results: Out of 14,348 records, we included 93 articles (112 scales). Most studies focused on adolescents (12–18 years). Twelve scales were used more than once, seven were used across regions, and four were employed for multiple stigmas. Physical health stigma, and HIV/AIDS-related stigma in particular, was measured most; mental health and multiple/generic stigmas least. Physical and mental health scales were generally more comprehensive, i.e., measuring more stigma facets. In general, scales consistently measured two of the 21 included stigma facets, namely the disruptiveness dimension and the community level. Cross-cultural equivalence was moderate; conceptual and measurement equivalence were high. Discussion: Although scales were largely comparable in how they measure stigma, they failed to reflect the complexity of the stigmatization process and fell short of existing stigma frameworks and qualitative research. Stigma research with children should work towards cross-culturally validated stigma scale sets which incorporate more facets of existing stigma frameworks, thus facilitating comparability across cultural contexts and informing intervention development and evaluation

Assessing stigma in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of scales used with children and adolescents

Introduction: Stigmatization contributes to health inequalities, impacting the wellbeing of children and adolescents negatively. Addressing stigmatization requires adequate measurement. Our systematic review synthesizes the content of scales used with children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across stigmas, and examines their comparability and level of cultural adaptation. Methods: Ten databases were systematically searched combining three sets of search terms: (i) stigma, (ii) scales, and (iii) LMICs. Studies conducted in LMICs, with a sample with mean age below 18 and reporting a minimum of one stigma scale, were eligible. We allocated scale items to four frameworks: (i) dimensions, or drivers of stigmatization; (ii) target variants, or types of stigmatization; (iii) socio-ecological levels, and (iv) cross-cultural equivalence, or scale adaptation to context/population. Based on percentages, we compared scale content per age cohort, stigma status, region, and stigma category. Results: Out of 14,348 records, we included 93 articles (112 scales). Most studies focused on adolescents (12–18 years). Twelve scales were used more than once, seven were used across regions, and four were employed for multiple stigmas. Physical health stigma, and HIV/AIDS-related stigma in particular, was measured most; mental health and multiple/generic stigmas least. Physical and mental health scales were generally more comprehensive, i.e., measuring more stigma facets. In general, scales consistently measured two of the 21 included stigma facets, namely the disruptiveness dimension and the community level. Cross-cultural equivalence was moderate; conceptual and measurement equivalence were high. Discussion: Although scales were largely comparable in how they measure stigma, they failed to reflect the complexity of the stigmatization process and fell short of existing stigma frameworks and qualitative research. Stigma research with children should work towards cross-culturally validated stigma scale sets which incorporate more facets of existing stigma frameworks, thus facilitating comparability across cultural contexts and informing intervention development and evaluation