| Design |
A theoretical framework of stigma should be applied from conception of the scale to ensure all relevant domains of stigma are represented. |
|
Future scales should be co-designed with persons with lived experience of outbreak-associated stigma. |
|
Scale items should be informed by qualitative research alongside existing scales. |
|
When resources allow, scale design should be informed by a range of outbreak diseases and settings to enhance transferability of the scale. This should be facilitated by large public health institutions. |
|
Established best practices for ensuring cross-cultural equivalence (e.g., [23]) should be followed when translating and adapting scales for cross-contextual use.
|
| Validation |
Scale items should be formally assessed for content validity (including clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness) by both experts in the field and relevant community members with lived experience of stigma. |
|
Confirmation of the structural validity of scales should precede internal consistency testing. Other forms of reliability, including test-retest reliability, should be routinely assessed alongside internal consistency. |
|
The cross-cultural validity of scales should be assessed across countries, diseases, and respondent profiles using multi-group factor analyses or Differential Item Functioning analyses. |
|
The responsiveness of scales should be assessed to ensure they have the ability to detect changes in stigma over time.
|
| Use |
Scales should be used in longitudinal and pre- and post-interventional studies to assess stigma trends over the course of an outbreak, rather than limited to cross-sectional use. |
|
When possible, representative sampling techniques should be adopted in administration of stigma scales. |
|
The results of studies assessing stigma during outbreaks, as well as the stigma scales used, need to be rapidly publicly disseminated with minimal access barriers such as paywalls. |