Table 2.
Characteristics of included studies.
| 1st author, year | Country, disease | Population | Sample size | Intervention | Stigma measure; any validation | Outcome; risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomised controlled trials | ||||||
| Islam and Pakrashi, 2021 (17) | India, COVID-19 |
Adult residents | 1,081 (intervention); 1,057 (control) | Phone-based delivery of accurate COVID-19 information and anti-stigma messaging | Two composite stigma measures; no | ↓; some concerns for bias* |
| Lu et al., 2021 (26) | China, COVID-19 |
University students returning from Wuhan to non-Hubei provinces | 31 (intervention); 32 (control) | Brief online “social support” reading and writing psychological exercise | Perceived Personal Discrimination Scale; yes | ↓; some concerns for bias* |
| Smith, 2012 (19) | United States, Disease X (hypothetical) | Undergraduate students | 333 (16 experimental conditions) | Exposure to different message frames in a hypothetical infectious-disease alert | Stigma-belief and restrictive-measures scales; yes | ↑ (high-peril messaging); some concerns for bias* |
| Techapoonpon et al., 2023 (25) | Thailand, COVID-19 | Recovered persons who had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19 | 71 (intervention); 71 (control) | Brief self-directed online programme on COVID-19 stigma and emotional first-aid techniques | Adapted version of COVID-19-related stigma questionnaire; yes | ↓ (days 7 and 14); some concerns for bias* |
| Tidwell et al., 2024 (20) | Kenya, COVID-19 |
Residents of informal settlements | 515 (intervention 1); 516 (intervention 2); 494 (control) | Behaviourally framed text messages emphasising (1) reciprocity or (2) community support | Survey of knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions; no | ↔; some concerns for bias* |
| Valeri et al., 2021 (18) | United States, COVID-19 | Adult residents | 250 (control); 243 (intervention 1); 249 (intervention 2); 246 (intervention 3) | (1) Information sheet only; (2) plus video on social support; (3) plus video of recovered person sharing experience | Adapted HIV stigma scale; no | ↓ (interventions 2 & 3); high risk of bias* |
| Wang et al., 2024 (27) | China, COVID-19 |
Male adults | 70 (within-sample, before/after comparison) | 24 IU intranasal oxytocin (based on social behaviour and empathy mechanism) | Stigma-judgement paradigm; yes | ↔; low risk of bias* |
| Qualitative studies | ||||||
| Biesty et al., 2024 (21) | United Kingdom, mpox | Outbreak responders and GBMSM | 11 (key-informant interviews); 15 (workshops) | Community-led public-health campaigns and messaging through LGBTQ+ organisations to reduce stigma and increase vaccine uptake | Qualitative interviews / focus groups; N/A | Mixed results; largely methodologically sound † |
| Collier et al., 2023 (22) | Sierra Leone, Ebola disease | Affected community members / leaders | 134 (total participants) | Community-driven sensitisation campaign using survivors, local leaders and health workers to disseminate trusted information | Qualitative interviews / focus groups; N/A | ↓; methodologically sound † |
| Crea et al., 2022 (23) | Sierra Leone, Ebola disease | Affected community members / leaders | 228 (total participants) | Community protection bylaws and education led by local leaders, health workers and NGO staff | Qualitative interviews / focus groups; N/A | Mixed results; mostly methodologically sound † |
| Siu, 2008 (24) | Hong Kong, SARS | Recovered persons | 170 (observation only); 30 (in-depth interview) | Follow-up clinics for SARS survivors with separate entrances and elevators for privacy | Qualitative interviews; N/A | ↑; methodologically sound † |
↓Reduction in stigma; ↑ Increase in stigma; ↔ No clear change in stigma. *Assessed with Cochrane revised risk-of-bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2). †Assessed with CASP qualitative-studies checklist. IU, International units; GBMSM, Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men; NGO, Non-governmental organisation; SARS, Severe acute respiratory syndrome; UK, United Kingdom; US, United States.