Prevalence and associated factors for perceived stigma among caregivers of patients with mental illness in Ethiopia: A national based systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study planned to assess the prevalence and associated factor of perceived stigma among caregiver of patient with mental illness in Ethiopia. The Design of this study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched from database PubMed, Google Scholar, and CINAHL and studies available from inception to August 2024. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled effect size of the outcome measures with their 95% CI. Stata version 14.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) was used for statistical analysis. A total of five studies reported the prevalence of perceived stigma among caregivers of patients with mental illness. The pooled prevalence of perceived stigma was 65% (95% CI: 41%–88%), with high heterogeneity ( I ² = 99.6%, p < 0.001). Longer caregiving duration (2.08, 95% CI: 0.87–3.29), and poor social support (4.20, 95% CI: 2.30–6.11) were associated with perceived stigma. Perceived stigma among caregivers of patient with mental illness is high in Ethiopia. The prevalence of perceived stigma prevalence varies across regions. Addressing perceived stigma among caregivers of individuals with mental illness in Ethiopia should be a priority for mental health services and policy makers. PROSPERO registration number : CRD42024581201.
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 | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".