MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409070655 · doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_52_25

Unveiling the Hidden Barriers: A Review of Stigma Associated with Infectious Diseases and Its Impact on Prevention and Control

2025· review· en· W4409070655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ibrahim Awad Eljack Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)MisinformationSocial stigmaMedicinePublic healthCommunity engagementPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthGerontologyPsychologyFamily medicineNursingPublic relationsPsychiatryPolitical scienceHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A BSTRACT This review explores the influence of stigma on infectious diseases like tuberculosis and sexually transmitted infections and its implications for public health efforts. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed articles provided data on stigma concepts, contributing factors, cultural and social contexts, and health outcomes. Using tools like the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and CASP checklists, we assessed study quality and calculated odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs), and P values to measure stigma’s impact. Among 35 included studies, findings reveal stigma in Saudi Arabia is deeply entrenched in cultural and social frameworks, contributing to delayed diagnosis (ORs 1.5–3.0, CIs 1.2–4.0, P < 0.01), reduced healthcare utilization, and poor outcomes. Key factors include misinformation, cultural beliefs, and fear of social rejection. Effective interventions such as public education, community engagement, and policy reforms are crucial. Addressing stigma through culturally sensitive public health strategies and policy advocacy is vital for improving disease prevention and control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy And Bioallied SciencesSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207