Lassa Fever-associated Stigmatization among Staff and Students of the University of Benin, Nigeria

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.

Addressing stigma in infectious disease outbreaks: a crucial step in pandemic preparedness

There is a complex interplay between infectious disease outbreaks and the stigmatization of affected persons and communities. Outbreaks are prone to precipitating stigma due to the fear, uncertainty, moralisation, and abatement of freedoms associated with many infectious diseases. In turn, this stigma hampers outbreak control efforts. Understanding this relationship is crucial to improving coordinated outbreak response. This requires valid and reliable methods for assessing stigma towards and within impacted communities. We propose adopting a cross-outbreak model for developing the necessary assessment tools. A stigma-informed approach must then be integrated into outbreak preparedness and response efforts to safeguard public health and promote inclusivity and compassion in future outbreaks.

Public and health professional epidemic risk perceptions in countries that are highly vulnerable to epidemics: a systematic review

Background

Risk communication interventions during epidemics aim to modify risk perceptions to achieve rapid shifts in population health behaviours. Exposure to frequent and often concurrent epidemics may influence how the public and health professionals perceive and respond to epidemic risks. This review aimed to systematically examine the evidence on risk perceptions of epidemic-prone diseases in countries highly vulnerable to epidemics.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA standards. We included peer-reviewed studies describing or measuring risk perceptions of epidemic-prone diseases among the general adult population or health professionals in 62 countries considered highly vulnerable to epidemics. We searched seven bibliographic databases and applied a four-stage screening and selection process, followed by quality appraisal. We conducted a narrative meta-synthesis and descriptive summary of the evidence, guided by the Social Amplification of Risk Framework.

Results

Fifty-six studies were eligible for the final review. They were conducted in eighteen countries and addressed thirteen epidemic-prone diseases. Forty-five studies were quantitative, six qualitative and five used mixed methods. Forty-one studies described epidemic risk perceptions in the general public and nineteen among health professionals. Perceived severity of epidemic-prone diseases appeared high across public and health professional populations. However, perceived likelihood of acquiring disease varied from low to moderate to high among the general public, and appeared consistently high amongst health professionals. Other occupational groups with high exposure to specific diseases, such as bushmeat handlers, reported even lower perceived likelihood than the general population. Among health professionals, the safety and effectiveness of the work environment and of the broader health system response influenced perceptions. Among the general population, disease severity, familiarity and controllability of diseases were influential factors. However, the evidence on how epidemic risk perceptions are formed or modified in these populations is limited.

Conclusions

The evidence affords some insights into patterns of epidemic risk perception and influencing factors, but inadequately explores what underlies perceptions and their variability, particularly among diseases, populations and over time. Approaches to defining and measuring epidemic risk perceptions are relatively underdeveloped.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40249-021-00927-z.