Validity and reliability of a modified short version of a stigma scale for use among Tunisian COVID ‐19 patients after quarantine: A cross‐sectional study

Systematic Review of Scales for Measuring Infectious Disease-Related Stigma

Infectious disease outbreaks are associated with substantial stigma, which can have negative effects on affected persons and communities and on outbreak control. Thus, measuring stigma in a standardized and validated manner early in an outbreak is critical to disease control. We reviewed existing scales used to assess stigma during outbreaks. Our findings show that many different scales have been developed, but few have been used more than once, have been adequately validated, or have been tested in different disease and geographic contexts. We found that scales were usually developed too slowly to be informative early during an outbreak and were published a median of 2 years after the first case of an outbreak. A rigorously developed, transferable stigma scale is needed to assess and direct responses to stigma during infectious disease outbreaks.

Measuring stigma associated with hepatitis B virus infection in Sierra Leone: Validation of an abridged Berger HIV stigma scale

Stigma associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) is common in endemic countries; however; instruments are lacking to accurately measure HBV-related stigma. We therefore aimed to develop and validate a concise instrument for measuring perceived HBV-related stigma in Sierra Leone. We enrolled 220 people living with HBV (PWHB) aged ≥18 years from August to November 2022. The initial Likert-scale instrument entailed 12 items adapted from Berger's HIV Stigma Scale. We included four additional items adapted from the USAID indicators for enacted stigma. The proposed scale's psychometric properties were assessed. After item reduction, the final HBV Stigma Scale consisted of 10 items and had good internal consistency (overall Cronbach's α = 0.74), discriminant, and construct validity. Exploratory factor analysis produced a three-dimensional structure accounting for 59.3% of variance: personalized stigma driven by public attitudes (six items), negative self-image (two items), and disclosure concerns (two items). Overall, 72.8% of respondents reported perceived HBV-related stigma (mean score 29.11 ± 4.14) and a similar proportion (73.6%) reported at least one instance of enacted stigma. In assessing criterion-related validity, perceived HBV-related stigma correlated strongly with enacted stigma (r = 0.556) and inversely with having family/friends with HBV (r = -0.059). The 10-item HBV Stigma Scale demonstrated good internal consistency and validity and is suitable for screening for HBV-related stigma in Sierra Leone. The psychometric properties of the scale can be optimized with item additions/modifications and confirmatory factor analysis. The scale may help in combating stigma as a barrier to achieving HBV global elimination goals.

COVID-19-related stigma among infected people in Sweden; psychometric properties and levels of stigma in two cohorts as measured by a COVID-19 stigma scale

BACKGROUND

Epidemics have historically been accompanied by stigma and discrimination. Disease-related stigma has often been shown to have severe consequences for physical, mental and social wellbeing and lead to barriers to diagnosis, treatment and prevention. The aims of this study were to investigate if a HIV-related stigma measure could be adapted and valid and reliable to measure COVID-19-related stigma, and also to investigate levels of self-reported stigma and related factors among people in Sweden with experience of COVID-19 and compare levels of COVID-19-related stigma versus HIV-related stigma among persons living with HIV who had experienced a COVID-19 event.

METHODS

Cognitive interviews (n = 11) and cross-sectional surveys were made after the acute phase of the illness using a new 12-item COVID-19 Stigma Scale and the established 12-item HIV Stigma Scale in two cohorts (people who had experienced COVID-19 (n = 166/209, 79%) and people living with HIV who had experienced a COVID-19 event (n = 50/91, 55%). Psychometric analysis of the COVID-19 Stigma Scale was performed by calculating floor and ceiling effects, Cronbach's α and exploratory factor analysis. Levels of COVID-19 stigma between groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Levels of COVID-19 and HIV stigma among people living with HIV with a COVID-19 event were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 cohort consisted of 88 (53%) men and 78 (47%) women, mean age 51 (19-80); 143 (87%) living in a higher and 22 (13%) in a lower income area. The HIV + COVID-19 cohort consisted of 34 (68%) men and 16 (32%) women, mean age 51 (26-79); 20 (40%) living in a higher and 30 (60%) in a lower income area. The cognitive interviews showed that the stigma items were easy to understand. Factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution accounting for 77% of the total variance. There were no cross loadings, but two items loaded on factors differing from the original scale. All subscales had acceptable internal consistency, showed high floor and no ceiling effects. There was no statistically significant difference between COVID-19 stigma scores between the two cohorts or between genders. People living in lower income areas reported more negative self-image and concerns about public attitudes related to COVID-19 than people in higher income areas (median score 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 3 on a scale from 3-12, Z = -1.980, p = 0.048 and Z = -2.023, p = 0.024, respectively). People from the HIV + COVID-19 cohort reported more HIV than COVID-19 stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

The adapted 12-item COVID-19 Stigma Scale may be valid and reliable for measurement of COVID-19-related stigma. However, specific items may need to be rephrased or replaced to better correspond to the COVID-19 context. People who had experienced COVID-19 reported low levels of COVID-19-related stigma in general but people from lower income areas had higher levels of negative self-image and concerns about public attitudes related to COVID-19 than people from areas with higher income, which may call for targeted interventions. Although exhibiting more pronounced HIV stigma levels, people living with HIV who had experienced COVID-19 reported COVID-19-related stigma of the same low magnitude as their peers not living with HIV.

Bifactor SEM and MIRT Structure of a 12-Item Human Immunodeficiency Virus Stigma Scale in Peruvian Adults

BACKGROUND

The stigma associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can lead to prejudice and discrimination against people who have been infected by this virus, consequently, it is important to have a validated tool to measure this phenomenon. However, there is only 1 national precedent that has validated the scores of this instrument in its 21-item version. Therefore, this study examined the bifactor structural equation method (SEM) and multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) structure of a 12-item human immunodeficiency virus stigma scale in Peruvian adults.

METHODS

We evaluated 342 patients (57.6% female and 42.45% male) diagnosed with HIV receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) from a hospital located in East Lima, aged 18 to 45 years (M = 31.4, SD = 9.79). A SEM was used to test 2 measurement models, a 4-factor correlated oblique model and a bifactor model due to high interfactor relationships.

RESULTS

Acceptable fit indices were identified for the oblique model (χ2/df = 1.26, SRMR = 0.044, RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.028 [0.000-0.047], CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.994). In the same way, similar results were evident for the bifactor model (χ2/df = 1.14, SRMR = 0.039, RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.020 [0.000-0.044], CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.997), however, in the latter it showed a greater explanation for the unidimensional model (H = 0.87, PUC = 0.82, LCA = 0.70), which was also evidenced by the bifactor MIRT analysis.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the 12-item HIV Stigma Scale meets the psychometric properties of internal structure and unifactorial reliability.

Experienced stigma and applied coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

Health-related stigma is considered a social determinant of health equity and a hidden burden of disease. This study aimed to assess the level and dimensions of stigma and respective coping mechanisms in COVID-19 survivors.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study with sequential explanatory design was conducted at the University Hospital of Ulm, Germany. Stigma was assessed using the Social Impact Scale (SIS) including adult COVID-19 survivors with mild-to-severe disease. Subsequently, 14 participants were sampled with regard to gender, age and severity of disease for in-depth interviews to understand how stigma was experienced and coping strategies were applied. The questionnaire was analysed using descriptive statistics, t-test and analysis of variance. Content analysis was used for qualitative data.

RESULTS

From 61 participants, 58% were men and mean age was 51 years. The quantitative analysis of the SIS indicated an intermediate level of experienced stigma. Participants experienced stigma mainly as 'social rejection' (M=14.22, SD=4.91), followed by 'social isolation' (M=10.17, SD=4.16) and 'internalised shame' (M=8.39, SD=3.32). There was no significant difference in experienced stigma regarding gender, education, occupational status or residual symptoms. However, participants between 30 and 39 years of age experienced higher levels of stigma than other age groups (p=0.034). The qualitative analysis revealed how stigma seemed to arise from misconceptions creating irrational fear of infection, leading to stereotyping, vilification, discrimination and social exclusion of COVID-19 survivors, leaving them feeling vulnerable. Stigma cut through all social levels, from the individual level at the bottom to the institutional and societal level at the top. Social networks protected from experiencing stigma.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19-related stigma is a relevant burden in the ongoing pandemic. Providing accurate information and exposing misinformation on disease prevention and treatment seems key to end COVID-19-related stigma.