Examining Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Stigma Among Health Care Workers Toward the Development of a Stigma-Reduction Intervention: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DRTB) is an increasing threat to human health and economic security worldwide. Exacerbating the severity of DRTB is the low rate of service delivery, leading to increased community transmission of the disease, further amplified by stigma. Health workers are on the front line of service delivery; their efforts in all areas of disease control are suspected of having resulted in stigmatization, impacting patient-centered care. As a growing concern, attention to addressing the DRTB stigma confronting health workers is required. However, little is known about stigma among health workers delivering services to patients with DRTB. This scoping review will provide an overview that could help inform appropriate responses toward stigma-reduction interventions for these health workers. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review protocol articulates a methodology that will examine the facets of DRTB-related stigma confronting health workers in high TB- and DRTB-burdened countries. This scoping review will (1) summarize stigma barriers and facilitators contributing to stigmatization among health workers delivering services to patients with DRTB, (2) identify the most common stigma barrier and facilitator, and (3) summarize the stigma-reduction intervention recommendations in the studies. METHODS: Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the recommendations of Munn et al, we will conduct a scoping review of relevant literature providing evidence of DRTB-related stigma among health workers from countries with a high burden of tuberculosis (TB) and DRTB. We will search published articles written in English from 2010 onward in electronic databases using Medical Subject Headings and keywords. Our search will apply a 3-step search strategy and use software tools to manage references and facilitate the entire scoping review process. The findings of our review will be presented following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews checklist. Our study is registered with Open Science Framework Registries. RESULTS: This scoping review is part of a bigger project that will critically investigate stigma among health workers delivering services to patients resistant to TB medications. This study began in November 2021 and is expected to finish in 2023. The study has retrieved 593 abstracts out of 12,138 articles searched since February 2022 from the identified databases. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide an outline of the aspects of DRTB-related stigma confronting health workers. The findings of this review could help inform appropriate responses toward stigma-reduction interventions for these health workers. This is significant because interventions addressing related TB (and DRTB) stigma in the workplace are lacking. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43084.
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 | 0.088 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.016 |
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".