A systematic review of mental health interventions to reduce self-stigma in medical students and doctors

Background

A growing body of literature has revealed that many medical students and doctors do not seek professional help for their mental health due to fear of stigma (both public- and self-stigma) and questioning of their clinical competency. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate direct and indirect interventions that address mental health stigma in medical students and/or doctors. We focused explicitly on studies that measured the impact on self-stigma outcomes.

Method

A systematic search of the following electronic databases was undertaken from inception to 13 July 2022: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, together with manual searching of reference lists. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts of eligible studies, plus quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, were independently conducted by multiple reviewers with disagreements resolved via discussion.

Results

From 4,018 citations, five publications met the inclusion criteria. None of the studies explicitly aimed to reduce self-stigmatisation, with the majority focusing on medical students. Most of the identified interventions focused on reducing professional stigma (i.e., stigma toward patients with mental illness) and measurement of self-stigma was incidentally collected via a subscale of the general stigma measure selected. Three studies found significant reductions in self-stigma following the delivered intervention. These studies were of moderate quality, had medical student samples, employed combined education and contact interventions, and used the same outcome measure.

Discussion

Intentional development and evaluation of interventions specifically designed to decrease self-stigma among doctors and medical students are needed, with further research required on the optimal components, format, length, and delivery of such interventions. Researchers delivering public/professional stigma reduction interventions should strongly consider measuring the impact of such interventions on self-stigma outcomes, using fit-for-purpose, psychometrically sound instruments.

Disordered eating measures validated in pregnancy samples: a systematic review

Although disordered eating in pregnancy has been linked to numerous negative consequences, there is currently no published instrument specifically devised to identify or measure such symptoms in pregnancy. As such, this study systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the performance of general measures of disordered eating in pregnancy samples. A systematic search of the following electronic databases was undertaken from inception to April 2019: Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. From 1724 citations, eight publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most of the included studies (6/8) were of reasonable quality. Overall, three self-report inventories (EDE-Q, EDI-2, and DEBS) and one semi-structured clinical interview (EDE) had some form of psychometric information available. Most studies reported reliability, with only two reporting validity. No studies assessed screening accuracy. Other than the EDE-Q, which had preliminary evidence to suggest possible utility in pregnancy, the findings of this review revealed little to no evidence to support the use of general measures of disordered eating in pregnancy. A strong need for research exploring the validity of existing measures in pregnancy samples, including the EDE-Q, was also evident.

Signs and symptoms of disordered eating in pregnancy: a Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to establish consensus on the expression and distinction of disordered eating in pregnancy to improve awareness across various health professions and inform the development of a pregnancy-specific assessment instrument.

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi method was used with two independent panels. International clinicians and researchers with extensive knowledge on and/or clinical experience with eating disorders formed the first panel and were recruited using structured selection criteria. Women who identified with a lived experience of disordered eating in pregnancy formed the second panel and were recruited via expressions of interest from study advertising on pregnancy forums and social media platforms. A systematic search of academic and grey literature produced 200 sources which were used to pre-populate the Round I questionnaire. Additional items were included in Round II based on panel feedback in Round I. Consensus was defined as 75% agreement on an item.

RESULTS

Of the 102 items presented to the 26 professional panel members and 15 consumer panel members, 75 reached consensus across both panels. Both panels clearly identified signs and symptoms of disordered eating in pregnancy and endorsed a number of clinical features practitioners should consider when delineating disordered eating symptomatically from normative pregnancy experiences.

CONCLUSION

A list of signs and symptoms in consensus was identified. The areas of collective agreement may be used to guide clinicians in clinical practice, aid the development of psychometric tools to detect/assess pregnancy-specific disordered eating, in addition to serving as starting point for the development of a core outcome set to measure disordered eating in pregnancy.