Key lessons learned from the INDIGO global network on mental health related stigma and discrimination

No description supplie

Anti-stigma interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Background Stigma exacerbates power imbalances and societal disparities, significantly impacting diverse identities and health conditions, particularly for low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Though crucial for dismantling harmful stereotypes, and enhancing healthcare utilisation, existing research on anti-stigma interventions is limited with its condition-focused approach. We aimed to thoroughly evaluate peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature for a comprehensive review of anti-stigma interventions for diverse identities and all health conditions in LMICs. Methods This review systematically explored peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature, in ten electronic databases up to January 30, 2024, covering all anti-stigma interventions across various stigmatised identities and health conditions in LMICs. Quality assessment for this systematic review was conducted as per Cochrane Collaboration’s suggested inclusions. The review was registered with PROSPERO (Registration: 2017 CRD42017064283). Findings Systematic synthesis of the 192 included studies highlights regional imbalances, while providing valuable insights on robustness and reliability of anti-stigma research. Most studies used quasi-experimental design, and most centred on HIV/AIDS or mental health related stigma, with very little work on other issues. Certain high-population LMICs had no/little representation. Interpretation The interventions targeted diverse segments of populations and consequently yielded a multitude of stigma-related outcomes. However, despite the heterogeneity of studies, most reported positive outcomes underscoring the effectiveness of existing interventions to reduce stigma

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs

Toward a multi-level strategy to reduce stigma in global mental health: overview protocol of the Indigo Partnership to develop and test interventions in low- and middle-income countries

There is increasing attention to the impacts of stigma and discrimination related to mental health on quality of life and access to and quality of healthcare. Effective strategies for stigma reduction exist, but most evidence comes from high-income settings. Recent reviews of stigma research have identified gaps in the field, including limited cultural and contextual adaptation of interventions, a lack of contextual psychometric information on evaluation tools, and, most notably, a lack of multi-level strategies for stigma reduction. The Indigo Partnership research programme will address these knowledge gaps through a multi-country, multi-site collaboration for anti-stigma interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Tunisia). The Indigo Partnership aims to: (1) carry out research to strengthen the understanding of mechanisms of stigma processes and reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental health conditions in LMICs; and (2) establish a strong collaborative research consortium through the conduct of this programme. Specifically, the Indigo Partnership involves developing and pilot testing anti-stigma interventions at the community, primary care, and mental health specialist care levels, with a systematic approach to cultural and contextual adaptation across the sites. This work also involves transcultural translation and adaptation of stigma and discrimination measurement tools. The Indigo Partnership operates with the key principle of partnering with people with lived experience of mental health conditions for the development and implementation of the pilot interventions, as well as capacity building and cross-site learning to actively develop a more globally representative and equitable mental health research community. This work is envisioned to have a long-lasting impact, both in terms of the capacity building provided to participating institutions and researchers, and the foundation it provides for future research to extend the evidence base of what works to reduce and ultimately end stigma and discrimination in mental health

Evaluation of nine candidate genes in patients with normal tension glaucoma: a case control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Normal tension glaucoma is a major subtype of glaucoma, associated with intraocular pressures that are within the statistically normal range of the population. Monogenic forms following classical inheritance patterns are rare in this glaucoma subtype. Instead, multigenic inheritance is proposed for the majority of cases. The present study tested common sequence variants in candidate genes for association with normal tension glaucoma in the German population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ninety-eight SNPs were selected to tag the common genetic variation in nine genes, namely OPTN (optineurin), RDX (radixin), SNX16 (sorting nexin 16), OPA1 (optic atrophy 1), MFN1 (mitofusin 1), MFN2 (mitofusin 2), PARL (presenilin associated, rhomboid-like), SOD2 (superoxide dismutase 2, mitochondrial) and CYP1B1 (cytochrome P450, family 1, subfamily B, polypeptide 1). These SNPs were genotyped in 285 cases and 282 fully evaluated matched controls. Statistical analyses comprised single polymorphism association as well as haplogroup based association testing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results suggested that genetic variation in five of the candidate genes (RDX, SNX16, OPA1, SOD2 and CYP1B1) is unlikely to confer major risk to develop normal tension glaucoma in the German population. In contrast, we observed a trend towards association of single SNPs in OPTN, MFN1, MFN2 and PARL. The SNPs of OPTN, MFN2 and PARL were further analysed by multimarker haplotype-based association testing. We identified a risk haplotype being more frequent in patients and a vice versa situation for the complementary protective haplotype in each of the three genes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Common variants of OPTN, PARL, MFN1 and MFN2 should be analysed in other cohorts to confirm their involvement in normal tension glaucoma.</p

Toward a multi-level strategy to reduce stigma in global mental health: overview protocol of the Indigo Partnership to develop and test interventions in low- and middle-income countries

There is increasing attention to the impacts of stigma and discrimination related to mental health on quality of life and access to and quality of healthcare. Effective strategies for stigma reduction exist, but most evidence comes from high-income settings. Recent reviews of stigma research have identified gaps in the field, including limited cultural and contextual adaptation of interventions, a lack of contextual psychometric information on evaluation tools, and, most notably, a lack of multi-level strategies for stigma reduction. The Indigo Partnership research programme will address these knowledge gaps through a multi-country, multi-site collaboration for anti-stigma interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Tunisia). The Indigo Partnership aims to: 1) carry out research to strengthen the understanding of mechanisms of stigma processes and reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental illness in LMICs; and 2) establish a strong collaborative research consortium through the conduct of this programme. Specifically, the Indigo Partnership involves developing and pilot testing anti-stigma interventions at the community, primary care, and mental health specialist care levels, with a systematic approach to cultural and contextual adaptation across the sites. This work also involves transcultural translation and adaptation of stigma and discrimination measurement tools. The Indigo Partnership operates with the key principle of partnering with people with lived experience of mental illness for the development and implementation of the pilot interventions, as well as capacity building and cross-site learning to actively develop a more globally representative and equitable mental health research community. This work is envisioned to have a long-lasting impact, both in terms of the capacity building provided to participating institutions and researchers, and the foundation it provides for future research to extend the evidence base of what works to reduce and ultimately end stigma and discrimination in mental health

Evidence-based mental health policy

This chapter describes evidence-based mental health policy with the help of illustrative examples. After briefly setting the use of research evidence to inform mental health policy within the broader historical context, the second section of the chapter provides a brief description of evidence-based mental health policy and its rationale. The third section illustrates how mental health research may help inform mental health policy, with a description of the research cycle, the policy cycle, their relationship, and the use of epidemiological studies for policymaking. The fourth section provides examples of the use of research evidence in mental health policy at different organizational levels, from the clinical level (micro-level), through the service provision/healthcare facility level (meso-level) and the whole health system level (macro-level), to the global level (mega-level). Finally, the chapter concludes by reflecting on some of the opportunities and challenges that influence evidence-based mental health policy