Cross-cultural adaptation of four instruments to measure stigma towards people with mental illness and substance use problems among primary care professionals in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigma toward people with mental illness and substance use problems is a significant global concern, and prevents people with these conditions from accessing treatment, particularly in primary health care (PHC) settings. Stigma is a cultural phenomenon that is influenced by particular contexts and can differ by country and region. The majority of stigma research focuses on Europe or North America leading to a lack of culturally relevant stigma research instruments for the Latin American context. The present study describes and discusses the methodology for cross-culturally adapting four stigma measurement scales to the Chilean context. The cross-cultural adaptation process included nine phases: (1) preparation; (2) independent translations; (3) synthesis 1 with expert committee; (4) focus groups and interviews with researchers, PHC professionals, and PHC users; (5) synthesis 2 with expert committee; (6) independent back translations; (7) synthesis 3 with expert committee; (8) pilot with PHC professionals; and (9) final revisions. The adaptation process included an array of diverse voices from the PHC context, and met three adaptation objectives defined prior to beginning the process (Understandability, Relevance, and Acceptability and Answer Options). The resulting, culturally adapted questionnaire is being validated and implemented within PHC settings across Chile to provide in-depth insight into stigma among PHC professionals in the country. The authors hope it will be useful for future research on mental illness and substance use stigma in similar settings across Latin America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".