Impact of Skill-Based Approaches in Reducing Stigma in Primary Care Physicians: Results from a Double-Blind, Parallel-Cluster, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Most interventions to reduce stigma in health professionals emphasize education and social contact-based strategies. We sought to evaluate a novel skill-based approach: the British Columbia Adult Mental Health Practice Support Program. We sought to determine the program's impact on primary care providers' stigma and their perceived confidence and comfort in providing care for mentally ill patients. We hypothesized that enhanced skills and increased comfort and confidence on the part of practitioners would lead to diminished social distance and stigmatization. Subsequently, we explored the program's impact on clinical outcomes and health care costs. These outcomes are reported separately, with reference to this article. METHODS: In a double-blind, cluster randomized controlled trial, 111 primary care physicians were assigned to intervention or control groups. A validated stigma assessment tool, the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), was administered to both groups before and after training. Confidence and comfort were assessed using scales constructed from ad hoc items. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, no significant differences in stigma were found. However, a subscale assessing social distance showed significant improvement in the intervention group after adjustment for a variable (practice size) that was unequally distributed in the randomization. Significant increases in confidence and comfort in managing mental illness were observed among intervention group physicians. A positive correlation was found between increased levels of confidence/comfort and improvements in overall stigma, especially in men. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some preliminary evidence of a positive impact on health care professionals' stigma through a skill-building approach to management of mild to moderate depression and anxiety in primary care. The intervention can be used as a primary vehicle for enhancing comfort and skills in health care providers and, ultimately, reducing an important dimension of stigma: preference for social distance.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".