Indirect social contact interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review

AIMS: 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). METHODS: 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.