A Systematic Review of Tuberculosis Stigma Reduction Interventions

2025

Полный текст Открытый доступ: Gold Метаданные (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/healthcare13151846
Достоверность данных 85 высокая
Как считается эта оценка

Складывается из проверяемых признаков самой записи: есть ли у статьи DOI, сколько независимых источников подтвердили её данные, заполнены ли обязательные поля и насколько свежо последнее подтверждение. Снижают оценку расхождения между источниками и отсутствие идентификатора. Значение от 80 означает, что запись опубликована без дополнительной проверки; от 60 до 79 — что она опубликована с пониженной достоверностью и ручная проверка желательна. Запись, выверенную редактором вручную, пересчёт не опускает ниже 90. Это оценка наших данных о статье, а не оценка самой статьи.

Аннотация

BACKGROUND: Stigma associated with tuberculosis (TB) continues to undermine patient well-being, treatment adherence, and public health goals and objectives. This study aims to systematically review the literature to identify and synthesize TB stigma reduction interventions published between 2015 and 2025. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies included those with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs that focused on interventions related to TB-related stigma. We categorized the studies into three groups: (1) intervention development studies, (2) TB treatment programs with stigma reduction outcomes, (3) stigma-specific interventions. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies focused on co-developing stigma interventions, which incorporated multi-level and multicomponent strategies targeting internalized, enacted, anticipated, and intersectional stigma. Two studies assessed TB treatment-related interventions (e.g., home-based care, digital adherence tools) with incidental stigma reduction effects. The remaining seven studies implemented stigma-targeted interventions, including educational programs, video-based therapy, peer-led support, and anti-self-stigma toolkits. Interventions addressed stigma across individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy levels. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the evolution and diversification of TB stigma interventions over the past decade. While earlier interventions emphasized education and support, recent strategies increasingly integrate peer leadership, digital platforms, and socio-ecological frameworks. The findings underscore the need for comprehensive, contextually grounded interventions that reflect the lived experiences of people affected by TB.