Narratives Around Concealment and Agency for Stigma-reduction: A study of Women affected by Leprosy in Cirebon District, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study analyses the experiences of women affected by leprosy, taking into consideration whether they concealed or disclosed their status, and looks specifically at their ‘agency’. The aim is to provide recommendations for stigma-reduction interventions. Methods: The study population consisted of women affected by leprosy who live in Cirebon District, Indonesia. Study subjects were purposively selected on the basis of characteristics such as age and role in the community. After informed consent was obtained, they were interviewed in their homes. Data was collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Analysis was done with six points of focus: who knows, care, social stigma, feelings, self-isolation and agency. Results: In total, 53 women were interviewed. Eight were omitted due to ambiguity over who knew about their leprosy status. Five different categories of ‘disclosure’ were identified, ranging from 1 woman who concealed completely to 19 (42%) who disclosed fully. Disclosure created possibilities for care and support, which 84% mentioned they received. In contrast, disclosure was also found to be linked to negative feelings, isolation and social stigma, which 18 women experienced. The women coped with this through acceptance, comforting themselves, trusting in God, focussing on recovery, friendship or finding inspiration in others. Conclusions: An analysis of these experiences helps to understand how women affected by leprosy are coping, and what they are already doing for and by themselves. This could be a starting point for more appropriate and effective stigma-reduction interventions. It is recommended to consider the following: i) assisting people with their choice, if any, of either concealment or disclosure, ii) the appropriateness of any intervention for people who (want to) conceal their illness, iii) the existing sources of care and support, and iv) the inner strength demonstrated and its three sources (spirituality, relationships and the desire to be cured).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".