Disclosure of a mental health problem carries both risks and benefits. It can be seen as a measure of perceptions of the social environment in which people with mental health problems live, work and study. A nationally representative Australian survey conducted in 2014 showed that, in many settings, non-disclosure was more common than disclosure. This study aimed to investigate whether disclosure in a broad range of settings has changed since the 2014 national survey.

Large nationally representative surveys of Australian adults were conducted in 2014 and 2024. For each, those who reported a mental health problem or were experiencing high psychological distress (n = 1381 in 2014, n = 2613 in 2024) were asked about disclosure in multiple settings. Regression analyses were used to explore whether changes between survey years were significant at p < 0.01, adjusting for sociodemographic variables of age, gender, education level, language spoken at home, country of birth and type of mental health problem. Secondary analyses assessed the sociodemographic and mental health problem characteristics associated with changes.

In 2024, participants were less likely than in 2014 to have disclosed to friends, partners, family members and some people in the neighbourhood, with relative risk ratios (RRRs) ranging from 0.33 (99% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23, 0.48; p < 0.001) for all family members to 0.64 (99% CI: 0.46, 0.88; p < 0.001) for some people in the neighbourhood. Workplace disclosure did not change significantly. For health professionals not involved in mental health treatment, the RRRs of disclosure were higher in 2024 than in 2014 (RRR = 1.56 [99% CI: 1.16, 2.10; p < 0.001] for disclosure to some and RRR = 2.31 [99% CI: 1.61, 3.32; p < 0.001] for disclosure to all).

Except for disclosure to health professionals not involved in mental health treatment, there have been decreases or no changes in disclosure of a mental health problem in most settings over the last 10 years. This likely reflects both perceptions of, and actual, reductions in supportive social environments. Urgent action is needed to ensure that, for people who do disclose a mental health problem, the benefits strongly outweigh the risks.

Reducing stigma and discrimination towards people with mental ill-health is a key priority in Australian mental health policy. Population-based surveys conducted in Australia between 2003 and 2011 showed some improvement in stigmatising attitudes, but also a deterioration in attitudes about dangerousness and unpredictability, particularly in relation to schizophrenia. This study aimed to investigate whether stigmatising attitudes have changed since the 2011 national survey.

Two large, nationally representative samples of Australian adults were surveyed in 2011 (n = 1967) and 2024 (n = 1984). At each time point, participants were presented with vignettes of a person in the early stages of depression or schizophrenia and completed questionnaires about stigmatising attitudes towards the person in the vignette (Personal Stigma Scale) and willingness to interact with them (Social Distance Scale). Using weighted data, logistic regressions assessed change from 2011 to 2024 while controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Results were considered significant at p < .01.

There were significant reductions in endorsement of stigmatising attitudes towards depression and early schizophrenia. Notably, there were large reductions in beliefs about dangerousness (depression 22.5–4.8% and schizophrenia 37.1–18.1%). Conversely, the willingness to interact with a person with depression remained unchanged and had worsened for schizophrenia, with the odds of being unwilling to interact approximately doubling (11.0–26.9% unwilling to make friends and 18.8–33.2% unwilling to work closely with them).

The data show mixed findings regarding change in stigma in the Australian population. Despite negative beliefs diminishing over time, this has not translated into greater willingness to interact with people with depression or schizophrenia. Key action is needed on understanding the barriers to interacting with people with mental health conditions and reducing perceptions of unpredictability, particularly for schizophrenia, which remains more highly stigmatised.

Reducing stigma and discrimination has been a priority in many national mental health policies for decades. Focusing efforts requires us to understand where this has the greatest impact on people with mental health problems. In 2024, we conducted a nationally representative survey that aimed to assess the burden of discrimination (as a product of frequency and impacts of experiences). Secondary aims were to quantify the types of discrimination experienced in different life domains and the sociodemographic and mental health problem characteristics of those experiencing higher burden.

Online surveys were completed by 6032 members of the general Australian community aged 18 years and over. The survey was carried out by the survey company The Social Research Centre, using their Life in Australia™ probability-based panel. Those who reported a mental health problem or scored high on the Kessler 6 measure of psychological distress (n = 2613) were asked about the past 12-month frequency and impact of their experiences of discrimination in a broad range of settings, including family, friends, workplaces and health services. The data were initially analysed using percent frequencies and 95% confidence intervals. A burden score was calculated for each domain, incorporating frequency and impact among those who reported discrimination experiences.

Overall, discrimination in social life was the most common (43.6% [95% CI 41.2, 45.9]), followed by discrimination from family (41.4% [95% CI 39.1, 43.7]) or in making or keeping friends (41.0% [95% CI 38.7, 43.3]). However, the highest burden was from discrimination in finding or keeping a job, in dating/intimate relationships, in housing (including renting or public housing) and in obtaining welfare benefits or disability pensions. The most common type of discrimination experience in the workplace and among friends, family and partners was of people lacking understanding of the impact of the person’s mental health problem. People aged 35–64 years were more likely than those aged 18–34 years to report higher burden in multiple domains; people with depression or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder also reported burden in more domains than people with anxiety or severe mental health conditions. Overall, 67.7% (95% CI 65.5, 69.9) agreed that stigma and discrimination was worse than the mental health problem itself.

Our study suggests that reducing the frequency and impact of discrimination in workplaces, welfare benefits and housing should be key targets for policy and practice. Improving the capacity of people in workplaces and intimate partners, families and friendship groups to better understand the impacts of mental health problems on individuals should also be a priority.

HOPE (National Institute for Health and Care Research Global Health Research Group on Homelessness and Mental Health in Africa) aims to develop and evaluate interventions that address the unmet needs of people who are homeless and have severe mental illness (SMI) living in three African countries in ways that are rights-based, contextually grounded, scalable and sustainable.

We will work in the capital city (Addis Ababa) in Ethiopia, a regional city (Tamale) in Ghana, and the capital city (Nairobi) and a rural county (Makueni) in Kenya to understand different approaches to intervention needed across varied settings.

We will be guided by the MRC/NIHR framework on complex interventions and implementation frameworks and emphasise co-production. Formative work will include synthesis of global evidence (systematic review, including grey literature, and a Delphi consensus exercise) on interventions and approaches to homelessness and SMI. We will map contexts; conduct focused ethnography to understand lived experiences of homelessness and SMI; carry out a cross-sectional survey of people who are homeless (n = 750 Ghana/Ethiopia; n = 350 Kenya) to estimate prevalence of SMI and identify prioritised needs; and conduct in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders to understand experiences, challenges and opportunities for intervention. This global and local evidence will feed into Theory of Change (ToC) workshops with stakeholders to establish agreement about valued primary outcomes, map pathways to impact and inform selection and implementation of interventions. Intervention packages to address prioritised needs will be co-produced, piloted and optimised for feasibility and acceptability using participatory action research. We will use rights-based approaches and focus on community-based care to ensure sustainability. Realist approaches will be employed to analyse how contextual variation affects mechanisms and outcomes to inform methods for a subsequent evaluation of larger scale implementation. Extensive capacity-strengthening activities will focus on equipping early career researchers and peer researchers. People with lived experience of SMI and policymakers are an integral part of the research team. Community engagement is supported by working closely with multisectoral Community Advisory Groups.

HOPE will develop evidence to support action to respond to the needs and preferences of people experiencing homelessness and SMI in diverse settings in Africa. We are creating a new partnership of researchers, policymakers, community members and people with lived experience of SMI and homelessness to enable African-led solutions. Key outputs will include contextually relevant practice and policy guidance that supports achievement of inclusive development.

Mental health related stigma and discrimination is a universal phenomenon and a contributor to the adversity experienced by people with schizophrenia. Research has produced inconsistent findings on how discrimination differs across settings and the contextual factors that underpin these differences. This study investigates the association between country-level Human Development Index (HDI) and experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with schizophrenia.

This study is a secondary data analysis of a global cross-sectional survey completed by people living with schizophrenia across 29 countries, between 2005 and 2008. Experienced and anticipated discrimination were assessed using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-10). Countries were classified according to their 2006 HDI. Negative binomial and Poisson regression analyses with a robust standard errors approach were conducted to investigate associations between country-level HDI and discrimination.

In the regression analyses, no evidence was found for a linear association between HDI and experienced or anticipated discrimination. Further exploratory analyses showed a significant non-linear association between HDI ratings and experienced discrimination. Participants in “high” and “very high” HDI countries reported more experienced discrimination compared to those in “medium” HDI countries.

HDI does, to some extent, appear to be associated with how far discrimination is experienced across different contexts. More high-quality cross-national research, including research focused on “medium” and “low” countries, is needed to substantiate these findings and identify underlying factors that may explain the pattern observed for experienced discrimination, including generating new datasets that would enable for these analyses to be repeated and contrasted with more recent data. An in-depth understanding of these factors will further aid the adaptation of cross-cultural and context specific anti-stigma interventions in future.

Help-seeking for mental health problems is facilitated and hindered by several factors at the individual, interpersonal and community level. The most frequently researched factors contributing to differences in help-seeking behaviour are based on classical socio-demographic variables, such as age, gender and education, but explanations for the observed differences are often absent or remain vague. The present study complements traditional approaches in help-seeking research by introducing a milieu approach, focusing on values and political attitudes as a possible explanation for differences in help-seeking for emotional mental health problems.

A representative cross-sectional survey of N = 3,042 respondents in Germany was conducted through face-to-face interviews about past help-seeking for mental health problems, socio-demographic characteristics and values and political attitudes

Multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that belonging to a cosmopolitan intellectual milieu group was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of past help-seeking for mental health issues (psychotherapeutic/psychological help-seeking [OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.11–3.93, p < 0.05) and primary care (OR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.15–4.24, p < 0.05]), whereas members of individualist and conservative milieu groups were less likely to report having sought help from a psychotherapist, but not from a general practitioner. Increased odds ratios were also found for a number of socio-demographic variables, such as being aged 26 years and over, a female gender and more than 12 years of formal education. Associations between socio-demographic variables remained significant, and the explained variance of the used models improved considerably when milieu variables were added.

We discuss how milieu-specific patterns were relevant for explaining differences in mental health service use in addition to socio-demographic factors. It seems promising to consider help-seeking from a milieu perspective to improve disparities in access to and the use of psychotherapy as well as to resource allocation.

Mental health-related stigma and discrimination are a complex and widespread issue with negative effects on numerous aspects of life of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Research shows that social contact is the best evidence-based intervention to reduce stigma. Within the context of a rapid development of remote technology, and COVID-19-related restrictions for face-to-face contact, the aim of this paper is to categorise, compare and define indirect social contact (ISC) interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination in mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

MEDLINE, Global Health, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched using a strategy including terms related to ‘stigma and discrimination’, ‘intervention’, ‘indirect social contact’, ‘mental health’ and ‘low- and middle-income countries’. Relevant information on ISC interventions was extracted from the included articles, and a quality assessment was conducted. Emerging themes were coded using a thematic synthesis method, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken to present the results.

Nine studies were included in the review overall. One study was ineffective; this was not considered for the categorisation of interventions, and it was considered separately for the comparison of interventions. Of the eight effective studies included in synthesis, interventions were categorised by content, combination of stigma-reducing strategies, medium of delivery, delivery agents, target condition and population, as well as by active or passive interaction and follow-up. Most of the interventions used education and ISC. Recovery and personal experience were important content components as all studies included either one or both. Cultural adaptation and local relevance were also important considerations.

ISC interventions were effective in overall terms for both the general public and healthcare providers, including medical students. A new definition of ISC interventions in LMICs is proposed. More research and better reporting of intervention details are needed to explore the effectiveness of ISC strategies in LMICs, especially in regions where little relevant research has been conducted.

The theory of ‘what matters most’ (WMM) has been developed to understand differences in mental illness stigma between cultures, postulating that stigma becomes most pervasive in situations that matter most in a specific cultural context. The rise of populism in Western societies demonstrates that also within one cultural context, different values ‘matter most’ to different groups. We expand the WMM framework to explore the spectrum of stigma manifestations within Western societies, relating it to both conservative/authoritarian and liberal/modern values. From our findings, we will develop hypotheses on how further research into value orientations and stigma might address potential blind spots in stigma research.

Based on a narrative review of the literature on mental illness stigma and value orientations, we apply the WMM framework to cultural mechanisms of stigma within modern Western societies.

There are several studies showing an association between traditional, authoritarian, conservative values with stronger mental illness stigma, while studies examining the stigma within liberal, modern value orientations are scarce. We hypothesise on situations where encountering a person with mental illness could threaten liberal values and thus might provoke stigma among persons with such value orientations. For example, living with a person with mental illness could be seen as consuming energy and time, thereby jeopardising ‘self-actualisation’, the modern value of realising one's own full potential. As a result, a person highly valuing self-actualisation might try to avoid contact with persons with mental illness. Instances of potential ‘liberal stigma’ also include structural stigma or self-stigma, when, e.g. changing assumptions of what is considered ‘normal’ increase perceptions of being fundamentally different when experiencing mental illness.

‘WMM’ appears to be a useful framework to direct research to potential blind spots within the field of stigma research. Looking at instances where liberal values conflict with dealing with a person with mental illness could provide a more comprehensive understanding of stigma experiences among persons with mental illness. However, for measuring stigma, tapping into liberal variations of mental illness stigma is methodologically challenging. Qualitative work could be the first step to elicit potential stigma experiences based on conflicts with liberal values.

Time to Change, an anti-stigma programme in England, has worked to reduce stigma relating to mental illness in many facets of life. Newspaper reports are an important factor in shaping public attitudes towards mental illnesses, as well as working as a barometer reflecting public opinion. This study aims to assess the way that coverage of mental health topics and different mental illnesses has changed since 2008.

Articles covering mental health in 18 different newspapers were retrieved using keyword searches on two randomly chosen days of each month in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2019. A content analysis approach using a structured coding framework was used to extract information from the articles. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the change in odds of each hypothesised stigmatising or anti-stigmatising element occurring in 2019 compared to 2008 and 2016 with a Wald test to assess the overall significance of year as a predictor in the model. Further logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the diagnosis that an article was about and the odds that it was stigmatising, and whether this relationship is moderated by year of publication.

A total of 6731 articles were analysed, and there was a significant increase in anti-stigmatising articles in 2019 compared to 2008 (OR 3.16 (2.60–3.84), p < 0.001) and 2016 (OR 1.40 (1.16–1.69), p < 0.001). Of the 5142 articles that specified a diagnosis, articles about schizophrenia were 6.37 times more likely to be stigmatising than articles about other diagnoses (OR 6.37 (3.05–13.29) p < 0.001), and there was evidence that the strength of this relationship significantly interacted with the year an article was published (p = 0.010). Articles about depression were significantly less likely to be stigmatising (OR 0.59 (0.69–0.85) p = 0.018) than those about other diagnoses, while there was no difference in coverage of eating disorders v. other diagnoses (OR 1.37 (0.67–2.80) p = 0.386); neither of these relationships showed an interaction with the year of publication.

Anti-stigma programmes should continue to work with newspapers to improve coverage of mental illness. However, interventions should consider providing specific guidance and promote awareness of rarer mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, and evaluation should examine whether reductions in stigma extend to people with all mental illness diagnoses.

To identify and categorise core components of effective stigma reduction interventions in the field of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and compare these components across cultural contexts and between intervention characteristics.

Seven databases were searched with a strategy including four categories of terms ('stigma’, ‘mental health’, ‘intervention’ and ‘low- and middle-income countries’). Additional methods included citation chaining of all papers identified for inclusion, consultation with experts and hand searching reference lists from other related reviews. Studies on interventions in LMICs aiming to reduce stigma related to mental health with a stigma-related outcome measure were included. All relevant intervention characteristics and components were extracted and a quality assessment was undertaken. A ‘best fit’ framework synthesis was used to organise data, followed by a narrative synthesis.

Fifty-six studies were included in this review, of which four were ineffective and analysed separately. A framework was developed which presents a new categorisation of stigma intervention components based on the included studies. Most interventions utilised multiple methods and of the 52 effective studies educational methods were used most frequently (n = 83), and both social contact (n = 8) and therapeutic methods (n = 3) were used infrequently. Most interventions (n = 42) based their intervention on medical knowledge, but a variety of other themes were addressed. All regions with LMICs were represented, but every region was dominated by studies from one country. Components varied between regions for most categories indicating variation between cultures, but only a minority of studies were developed in the local setting or culturally adapted.

Our study suggests effective mental health stigma reduction interventions in LMICs have increased in quantity and quality over the past five years, and a wide variety of components have been utilised successfully – from creative methods to emphasis on recovery and strength of people with mental illness. Yet there is minimal mention of social contact, despite existing strong evidence for it. There is also a lack of robust research designs, a high number of short-term interventions and follow-up, nominal use of local expertise and the research is limited to a small number of LMICs. More research is needed to address these issues. Some congruity exists in components between cultures, but generally they vary widely. The review gives an in-depth overview of mental health stigma reduction core components, providing researchers in varied resource-poor settings additional knowledge to help with planning mental health stigma reduction interventions.

This review aims to understand the scope of the literature regarding mental health-related microaggressions towards people affected by mental health problems.

A scoping review was conducted to explore this question. Four electronic health-oriented databases were searched alongside Google Scholar. As per scoping review principles, the inclusion criteria were developed iteratively. The results of included studies were synthesised using a basic narrative synthesis approach, utilising principles of thematic analysis and thematic synthesis where appropriate.

A total of 1196 records were identified, of which 17 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 were peer-reviewed journal articles, three were research degree theses and two were book chapters. Six included empirical studies were qualitative, four were quantitative and two employed a mixed-methods design. Within these, five qualitative studies aimed to describe the nature of mental health microaggressions experienced by people with mental health problems. Themes identified in a thematic synthesis of these five studies included stereotypes about mental illness, invalidating peoples' experience and blaming people with mental illness for their condition. The included publications informed on the perpetration of mental health microaggressions by family, friends, health professionals and social workers. In addition, two studies created scales, which were then used in cross-sectional surveys of the general public and community members to assess characteristics, such as right-wing political views, associated with endorsement of mental health microaggressions. A consensus definition of microaggressions emerged from the included studies: microaggressions are brief, everyday slights, snubs or insults, that may be subtle or ambiguous, but communicate a negative message to a target person based on their membership of a marginalised group, in this case, people affected by mental illness.

The study of mental health microaggressions is an emerging, heterogeneous field, embedded in the wider stigma and discrimination literature. It has been influenced by earlier work on racial microaggressions. Both can be ambiguous and contradictory, which creates difficulty defining the boundaries of the concept, but also underpins the key theoretical basis for the negative impact of microaggressions. Mental illness is a more concealable potential type of identity, so it follows that the reported perpetrators of microaggressions are largely friends, family and professionals. This has implications for intervening to reduce the impact of microaggressions. There are several challenges facing research in this area, and further work is needed to understand the impact of mental health microaggressions on people affected by mental health problems.

Mental health-related stigma is a major challenge associated with the huge mental health treatment gap. It has remained unclear what kind of educational content is effective in reducing the stigma. Whether biomedical messages (BMM) about mental illness are effective or harmful in decreasing stigma is controversial. To investigate whether BMM can improve practically useful knowledge of mental illness, comparably to recommended messages (RCM) advocated by experts, of types such as ‘recovery-oriented’, ‘social inclusion/human rights’ and ‘high prevalence of mental illnesses’ through a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

This study is an individual-level RCT with a parallel-group design over 1 year, conducted in Tokyo, Japan. A total of 179 participants (males n = 80, mean age = 21.9 years and s.d. = 7.8) were recruited in high schools and universities, and through a commercial internet advertisement in June and July 2017, without any indication that the study appertained to mental health. Participants were allocated to the BMM and RCM groups. They underwent a 10-min intervention, and completed self-report questionnaires during baseline, post-test, 1-month follow-up and 1-year follow-up surveys. The primary outcome measures were practically useful knowledge of mental illness at the post-test survey using the Mental Illness and Disorder Understanding Scale (MIDUS). Analysis was conducted in October 2018.

Both groups demonstrated improved MIDUS score in the post-test survey, and showed similar intervention effects (F(1, 177) = 160.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.48). The effect of the interventions continued until the 1-year follow-up survey (B [95% CI] = −2.56 [−4.27, −0.85], p < 0.01), and showed no difference between groups. The reported adverse effect that BMM increase stigma was not confirmed.

BMM may have a positive impact on stigma, comparable to RCM. These findings may encourage reconsideration of the content of messages about mental health, as it is indicated that combining BMM and RCM might contribute to an effective anti-stigma programme.

Public health strategies have focused largely on physical health. However, there is increasing recognition that raising mental health awareness and tackling stigma is crucial to reduce disease burden. National campaigns have had some success but tackling issues locally is particularly important.

To assess the public's awareness and perception of the monthly BBC Cornwall mental health phone-in programmes that have run for 8.5 years in Cornwall, UK (population 530 000).

A consultation, review and feedback process involving a multiagency forum of mental and public health professionals, people with lived experience and local National Health Service trust's media team was used to develop a brief questionnaire. This was offered to all attendees at two local pharmacies covering populations of 27 000 over a 2-week period.

In total, 14% (95% CI 11.9–16.5) were aware of the radio show, 11% (95% CI 9.0–13.1) have listened and the majority (76%) of those who listened did so more than once. The estimated reach is 70 000 people in the local population, of whom approximately 60 000 listen regularly. The show is highly valued among respondents with modal and median scores of 4 out of 5.

Local radio is a successful, cost-effective and impactful way to reach a significant proportion of the population and likely to raise awareness, reduce stigma and be well received. The format has been adopted in other regions thus demonstrating easy transferability. It could form an essential part of a public health strategy to improve a population's mental well-being.

W.H. received support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula UK. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. L.R. and D.S. were involved in delivering the programmes but had no role in their evaluation.

Despite an increasing awareness of the importance of spirituality in mental health contexts, a ‘religiosity gap’ exists in the difference in the value placed on spirituality and religion by professionals compared with service users. This may be due to a lack of understanding about the complex ways people connect with spirituality within contemporary society and mental health contexts, and can result in people's spiritual needs being neglected, dismissed or pathologised within clinical practice. The aim of this qualitative systematic review is to characterise the experiences of spirituality among adults with mental health difficulties in published qualitative research.

An electronic search of seven databases was conducted along with forward and backward citation searching, expert consultation and hand-searching of journals. Thirty-eight studies were included from 4944 reviewed papers. The review protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO:CRD42017080566).

A thematic synthesis identified six key themes: Meaning-making (sub-themes: Multiple explanations; Developmental journey; Destiny v. autonomy), Identity, Service-provision, Talk about it, Interaction with symptoms (sub-themes: Interactive meaning-making; Spiritual disruption) and Coping (sub-themes: Spiritual practices; Spiritual relationship; Spiritual struggles; Preventing suicide), giving the acronym MISTIC.

This qualitative systematic review provides evidence of the significant role spirituality plays in the lives of many people who experience mental health difficulties. It indicates the importance of mental health professionals being aware of and prepared to support the spiritual dimension of people using services. The production of a theory-based framework can inform efforts by health providers to understand and address people's spiritual needs as part of an integrated holistic approach towards care.

This systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma among medical and nursing students in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.

Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, professional students in medicine and nursing, and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full texts was done with the software MAXQDA. Full texts were analysed with regard to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a methodological quality assessment was undertaken.

A total of nine studies from six countries (Brazil, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somaliland and Turkey) were included. All studies reported significant results in at least one outcome measure. However, from the available literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the most effective interventions. No meta-analysis could be calculated due to the large heterogeneity of intervention content, evaluation design and outcome measures. Studies with contact interventions (either face-to-face or video) demonstrated attitudinal change. There was a clear lack of studies focusing on discriminatory behaviours. Accordingly, training of specific communication and clinical skills was lacking in most studies, with the exception of one study that showed a positive effect of training interview skills on attitudes. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented. The methodological quality of most studies was relatively low, with the exception of two studies.

There is an increase in studies on anti-stigma interventions among professional students in LMICs. Some of these studies used contact interventions and showed positive effects. A stronger focus on clinical and communication skills and behaviour-related outcomes is needed in future studies.