Background: Stigma associated with mental illness can delay or prevent help-seeking and service contact. Stigma-related influences on pathways to care in the early stages of psychotic disorders have not been systematically examined.Method: This review systematically assessed findings from qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research studies on the relationship between stigma and pathways to care (i.e. processes associated with help-seeking and health service contact) among people experiencing first-episode psychosis or at clinically defined increased risk of developing psychotic disorder. Forty studies were identified through searches of electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts) from 1996 to 2016, supplemented by reference searches and expert consultations. Data synthesis involved thematic analysis of qualitative findings, narrative synthesis of quantitative findings, and a meta-synthesis combining these results.Results: The meta-synthesis identified six themes in relation to stigma on pathways to care among the target population: ‘sense of difference’, ‘characterizing difference negatively’, ‘negative reactions (anticipated and experienced)’, ‘strategies’, ‘lack of knowledge and understanding’, and ‘service-related factors’. This synthesis constitutes a comprehensive overview of the current evidence regarding stigma and pathways to care at early stages of psychotic disorders, and illustrates the complex manner in which stigma-related processes can influence help-seeking and service contact among first-episode psychosis and at-risk groups.Conclusions: Our findings can serve as a foundation for future research in the area, and inform early intervention efforts and approaches to mitigate stigma-related concerns that currently influence recognition of early difficulties and contribute to delayed help-seeking and access to care.

School-based mental health services have been advocated to increase access to psychological support for children and adolescents. However, concerns have been raised about the potential stigma associated with selection of students and the visibility of school-based service contact. This review assessed findings from qualitative studies to identify potential stigmatising effects of participation in targeted school-based mental health interventions for students attending primary- or secondary-level education. Eight articles (reflecting seven studies) were identified through electronic database searches (PsycInfo, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, ERIC), supplemented by citation and reference searches and expert consultations. Data were synthesised according to established guidelines for thematic synthesis. Three overarching themes were identified: "anticipated and experienced stigma", "consequences of stigma" and "mitigating strategies". These findings illustrate how pervasively stigma can compromise efforts to increase access to mental health care through targeted school-based provision, while also outlining strategies endorsed by students for alleviating the risk and/or impact of stigma. The findings need to be considered in view of the relative scarcity of surveyed evidence. Furthermore, as all evidence came from high-income and Western countries, the applicability to other contexts is unclear. This synthesis reflects the first overview of qualitative evidence regarding stigmatising experiences and concerns associated with students' engagement with targeted school-based mental health interventions. The findings should inform efforts for mitigating stigma-related barriers to students' engagement in targeted mental health support, and serve to guide future research in this area.

In addition to services within the health system, interventions at the population and community levels are also important for the promotion of mental health, primary prevention of mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders, identification and case detection of MNS disorders; and to a lesser degree treatment, care and rehabilitation. This study aims to identify “best practice” and “good practice” interventions that can feasibly be delivered at these population- and community-levels in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to aid the identification of resource efficiencies and allocation in LMICs. A narrative review was conducted given the wide range of relevant interventions. Expert consensus was used to identify “best practice” at the population-level on the basis of existing quasi-experimental natural experiments and cost effectiveness, with small scale emerging and promising evidence comprising “good practice”. At the community-level, using expert consensus, the ACE (Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention Project) grading system was used to differentiate “best practice” interventions with sufficient evidence from “good practice” interventions with limited but promising evidence. At the population-level, laws and regulations to control alcohol demand and restrict access to lethal means of suicide were considered “best practice”. Child protection laws, improved control of neurocysticercosis and mass awareness campaigns were identified as “good practice”. At the community level, socio-emotional learning programmes in schools and parenting programmes during infancy were identified as “best practice”. The following were all identified as “good practice”: Integrating mental health promotion strategies into workplace occupational health and safety policies; mental health information and awareness programmes as well as detection of MNS disorders in schools; early child enrichment/preschool educational programs and parenting programs for children aged 2–14 years; gender equity and/or economic empowerment programs for vulnerable groups; training of gatekeepers to identify people with MNS disorders in the community; and training non-specialist community members at a neighbourhood level to assist with community-based support and rehabilitation of people with mental disorders. Interventions provided at the population- and community-levels have an important role to play in promoting mental health, preventing the onset, and protecting those with MNS disorders. The importance of inter-sectoral engagement and the need for further research on interventions at these levels in LMICs is highlighted.

There is increasing attention to the impacts of stigma and discrimination related to mental health on quality of life and access to and quality of healthcare. Effective strategies for stigma reduction exist, but most evidence comes from high-income settings. Recent reviews of stigma research have identified gaps in the field, including limited cultural and contextual adaptation of interventions, a lack of contextual psychometric information on evaluation tools, and, most notably, a lack of multi-level strategies for stigma reduction. The Indigo Partnership research programme will address these knowledge gaps through a multi-country, multi-site collaboration for anti-stigma interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Tunisia). The Indigo Partnership aims to: (1) carry out research to strengthen the understanding of mechanisms of stigma processes and reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental health conditions in LMICs; and (2) establish a strong collaborative research consortium through the conduct of this programme. Specifically, the Indigo Partnership involves developing and pilot testing anti-stigma interventions at the community, primary care, and mental health specialist care levels, with a systematic approach to cultural and contextual adaptation across the sites. This work also involves transcultural translation and adaptation of stigma and discrimination measurement tools. The Indigo Partnership operates with the key principle of partnering with people with lived experience of mental health conditions for the development and implementation of the pilot interventions, as well as capacity building and cross-site learning to actively develop a more globally representative and equitable mental health research community. This work is envisioned to have a long-lasting impact, both in terms of the capacity building provided to participating institutions and researchers, and the foundation it provides for future research to extend the evidence base of what works to reduce and ultimately end stigma and discrimination in mental health.

Aims: Stigma related to mental disorders is a barrier to quality mental healthcare. This scoping review aimed to synthesise literature on stigma related to mental disorders in Nepal to understand stigma processes. The anthropological concept of ‘what matters most’ to understand culture and stigma was used to frame the literature on explanatory models, manifestations, consequences, structural facilitators and mitigators, and interventions.Methods: We conducted a scoping review with screening guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A structured search was done using three international databases (PsycINFO, Medline and Web of Science), one Nepali database (NepJol) and cross-referencing for publications from 1 January 2000 through 24 June 2020. The search was repeated to include structural stigma-related terms. Quality of quantitative studies was assessed using the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR) tool. The review was registered through the Open Science Framework (OSF) (osf.io/u8jhn).Results: The searches yielded 57 studies over a 20-year period: 19 quantitative, 19 qualitative, nine mixed methods, five review articles, two ethnographies and three other types of studies. The review identified nine stigma measures used in Nepal, one stigma intervention, and no studies focused on adolescent and child mental health stigma. The findings suggest that ‘what matters most’ in Nepali culture for service users, caregivers, community members and health workers include prestige, productivity, privacy, acceptance, marriage and resources. Cultural values related to ‘what matters most’ are reflected in structural barriers and facilitators including lack of policies, programme planning and resources. Most studies using quantitative tools to assess stigma did not describe cultural adaptation or validation processes, and 15 out of the 18 quantitative studies were ‘low-quality’ on the SAQOR quality rating. The review revealed clear gaps in implementation and evaluation of stigma interventions in Nepal with only one intervention reported, and most stigma measures not culturally adapted for use.Conclusion: As stigma processes are complex and interlinked in their influence on ‘what matters most’ and structural barriers and facilitators, more studies are required to understand this complexity and establish effective interventions targeting multiple domains. We suggest that stigma researchers should clarify conceptual models to inform study design and interpretations. There is a need to develop procedures for the systematic cultural adaptation of stigma assessment tools. Research should be conducted to understand the forms and drivers of structural stigma and to expand intervention research to evaluate strategies for stigma reduction.