MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385740869 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3164809/v1

Measuring Stigma Cultures in Healthcare Settings: Development and Testing of a New Measure

2023· preprint· en· W4385740869 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather Stuart, Stephanie Knaak

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
FundersHealth CanadaMental Health Commission
KeywordsStigma (botany)Health careMental healthPsychologyPsychological interventionFeelingScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisMental illnessQualitative researchPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychologyStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Organizational cultures represent the norms, values, and assumptions underlying day to data activities and interactions. People with a mental or substance use disorder experience considerable stigma when interacting with healthcare cultures such as feeling patronized, humiliated, and excluded from treatment decisions. The management of healthcare cultures, and specifically stigma cultures, is increasingly viewed as a key aspect of healthcare reform. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stigma cultures in healthcare, valid and reliable measures are needed. Numerous measures assess aspects of the quality of care provided to people with a mental or substance use disorder, but none specifically addresses stigma cultures. To fill this gap, we developed and tested a new mental illness related stigma measure to be used in healthcare organizations to assess stigma cultures of care. Methods Item generation was grounded in the lived experiences of people (n = 20) with a mental or substance use disorder and reflect their personal experiences with healthcare encounters for physical or emotional health care. Items are rated on a 4-point agreement scale with higher scores indicating higher stigma. Following the qualitative analysis, national survey data (n = 2,476) were collected to conduct an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis on split halves of the sample. Results The analyses provided statistical support for a 23-item unidimensional scale that could be used in any healthcare setting to assess the presence of a stigma culture. Reliability was high (.92) and the resulting scale scores (ranging from 0 to 92) were approximately normal. Conclusions The resulting Stigma Cultures in Healthcare scale can be used across a range of physical and mental healthcare settings to assess the extent to which the culture of care is experienced as stigmatizing by clients with mental or substance use disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.423
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.093 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→