Stigma is one of the main barriers to prevention, treatment and recovery from mental illness. However, bibliometric studies in this area are still scarce. Therefore, our aim was to quantify and analyze the scientific literature on the stigma of nursing students and professionals towards mental disorders. To this purpose, bibliometric indicators of scientific production, impact and collaboration were used. Among our results, it stands out that only 14.3% of the total number of studies analyzed measure the efficacy of the interventions carried out to reduce stigma. Furthermore, with exceptions such as Happell B and Byrne L, collaborations between authors and institutions are limited. “Service user involvement” appeared as a prominent keyword in 2018, coinciding with the increase in publications on the effectiveness of interventions. Interventions based on the involvement of people with psychiatric diagnoses in the design of nursing curricula seem to become a promising line of research. More studies measuring the efficacy of such interventions are needed. Knowledge of the lines of research that are being developed and of the researchers and institutions involved can contribute to creating synergy between the different researchers and to continue adding projects to the existing ones, thus contributing to the generation of more robust results that show the most indicated interventions to reduce the still present stigma and improve care for people with psychiatric diagnoses.

Accessible Summary What Is Known on the Subject? The therapeutic relationship is crucial for mental health practice, especially to practice that is recovery-orientated. What the Paper Adds to Existing Knowledge? This lived experience suggests that mental health professionals can be a long way from knowing the service users' feelings and their precise needs. The narrative reveals how mental health professionals maintain stereotypes and prejudices against people with mental health conditions and how these are reflected in their practice through lack of respect and users' dignity. What Are the Implications for Mental Health Nursing? This lived experience narrative highlights the need to humanize care. IntroductionThe therapeutic relationship is not always functional in clinical practice due to various factors, such as lack of time, lack of job motivation, exhaustion and rejection towards the person cared for. AimThe aim of this study is to illustrate to professionals the needs of the persons they care for and how they see the world. MethodThe aim was achieved through the development of a lived experience narrative. ResultsThis lived experience narrative describes the experience of a mental health nurse since her first psychotic symptoms and her perceptions of the therapeutic relationship with mental health staff in her trajectory from the first psychiatric appointment until her last contact with the community mental health services. DiscussionThis narrative suggests that mental health professionals are sometimes far from discovering what service users are feeling and their precise needs. This highlights the need to humanize mental healthcare.

Background: Individuals with mental disorders experience higher morbidity and mortality than the general population, primarily due to co-occurring physical illnesses. Diagnostic overshadowing (DO)—defined as the misattribution of physical symptoms to mental illness—exacerbates health inequities and compromises universal health coverage goals. Subject: To advance understanding of the impact of DO, we aim to explore the perspectives of both mental health service users and healthcare professionals. Methods: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. Comprehensive searches were performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and CINAHL up to September 2025. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A convergent integrated approach, following the JBI methodology for mixed-methods systematic reviews and implemented through JBI SUMARI, was employed for synthesis and integration. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024523764). Results: Seven integrated findings on DO were identified, with frequencies ranging from 5.9% to 52.9%. The most prevalent were environmental facilitators of DO misattribution, clinical practices of premature physical-to-mental attribution, and physical consequences of DO. Factors that promote identification or prevention, stereotypes specifically undermining physical symptom credibility, emotional consequences of poor care, and professional challenges in providing adequate care were less frequent. Conclusion: DO is a relevant and recurring problem in mental health care. In this sense, DO emerges from the interaction between stigma, clinical complexity, and highly demanding environments. The evidence also indicates that some clinical and organizational factors may either increase or reduce risk.