Recorded versus live social contact interventions to reduce stigma: randomised controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background/Objectives: Social contact is known to reduce stigma and social contact-based interventions are being increasingly used in anti-stigma programmes in mental health. Recorded interventions, such as audiovisual DVDs, may act as an indirect form of social contact and may have practical and cost advantages, but little is known about their effectiveness. To compare the effectiveness of a DVD and a live mental health service user intervention and a lecture control, in reducing stigma. We hypothesised that: (i) there will be no difference between the DVD (indirect social contact with people affected by mental illness) and live (direct social contact) delivery modes; and (ii) the interventions with some form of social contact (DVD or live) will be more effective than a control with no social contact (lecture). Methods: Student nurses in their university foundation year were randomly allocated to (i) watch a DVD recording of service users and carers talking about their experiences, (ii) hear a live presentation by a service user and carer, or (iii) attend a lecture on mental health awareness and stigma. Outcomes were measured post-session and at four months follow-up. The primary outcome was stigmatising attitudes (Mental Illness Clinicians’ Attitudes scale, MICA). Secondary stigma-related outcomes were: emotional reactions to people with mental illness (Emotional Reactions to Mental Illness Scale, ERMIS), intended social proximity (Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale, RIBS), knowledge (Social Contact Interventions Leaning Outcomes scale, SCILO), and intended disclosure and intended healthcare seeking (two items only measured at follow up). Participants’ views, process variables and cost comparisons were also assessed. Two sets of comparisons were made following our hypotheses: (1) DVD versus live and (2) social contact with people affected by mental illness (indirect or direct i.e. DVD or live) versus no social contact (lecture). Results: 360 participants were randomised and 216 attended the interventions. Post-session data were collected for all participants and the response rate at four months follow-up was 89% (193/216). Results will be presented on the effectiveness of the interventions, on cost comparisons, on process variables, and on participants’ views. Discussion/Conclusions: The implications of the study findings for decisions about which strategies to use in anti-stigma programmes will be discussed. We will also identify the remaining evidence gaps and make recommendations for future research. Funding: This presentation presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant no. RP-PG-0606–1053). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,029 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».