背景:吸毒的人面临着根深蒂固的耻辱,这助长了羞耻,限制服务访问,加剧了不平等。在反污名化干预中使用大众媒体为大规模挑战污名化态度提供了机会。有,然而,大众媒体反污名干预中使用的消息传递方法不一致,以及作者如何概念化和衡量“污名”。
方法:本范围综述绘制了有关旨在减少对吸毒人群的污名化的大众媒体干预措施的发展和/或评估的文献。我们系统地搜索了七个数据库的报告:(i)使用毒品的人,(ii)污名,(三)大众传媒。我们绘制了有关干预(I)受试者和接受者的数据,(ii)格式,(三)作者,(Iv)内容;(v)污名的概念化和衡量。我们用定性内容分析对研究结果进行了叙述综合。
结果:来自14,256条记录,我们纳入了49例报告,约35例干预措施.25/35来自过去五年,19/35来自美国。预期接受者包括公众和/或指定的亚群,通常包括医护人员。大多数干预措施旨在减少对认为有问题的吸毒模式的人的污名,与一般使用毒品的人相反。干预措施从单一媒体到复杂的多格式活动不等。使用(d)药物的人贡献了22/35的干预措施。在医学学科工作的专业人士共同撰写了29/35干预措施。干预内容通常有医学焦点,将依赖描述为“疾病”或医疗问题,并强调了复苏的好处。其他干预措施,然而,批评医学框架。在一些干预措施中,药物使用和使用药物的人被描述为明显的负面术语。“耻辱”经常被低估,测量方法不一致,在19项定量评估中,有42种仪器用于测量与污名相关的现象。
结论:我们发现减少和测量污名的方法不一致,可能反映出干预发展的不同动机。许多干预措施的主要动机似乎是促进药物服务的参与和恢复。
BACKGROUND: People who use drugs face entrenched stigma, which fosters shame, restricts service access, and exacerbates inequalities. The use of mass media in anti-stigma interventions offers an opportunity to challenge stigmatising attitudes at scale. There are, however, inconsistencies in messaging approaches used in mass media anti-stigma interventions, and how authors conceptualise and measure \'stigma\'.
METHODS: This scoping review maps literature on the development and/or evaluation of mass media interventions intended to reduce stigma towards people who use drugs. We systematically searched seven databases for reports about: (i) people who use drugs, (ii) stigma, (iii) mass media. We charted data about intervention (i) subjects and recipients, (ii) format, (iii) authors, (iv) content; and (v) conceptualisation and measurement of stigma. We narratively synthesised findings with qualitative content analyses.
RESULTS: From 14,256 records, we included 49 reports about 35 interventions. 25/35 were from the last five years and 19/35 were from the United States. Intended recipients included the public and/or specified sub-populations, often including healthcare workers. Most interventions were intended to reduce stigma towards people with patterns of drug use perceived to be problematic, as opposed to people who use drugs in general. Interventions ranged from single pieces of media to complex multi-format campaigns. People who use(d) drugs contributed to 22/35 interventions. Professionals working in medical disciplines co-authored 29/35 interventions. Intervention content often had a medical focus, describing dependence as a \'disease\' or medical issue, and emphasised the benefits of recovery. Other interventions, however, criticised medical framings. In some interventions drug use and people who use drugs were described in markedly negative terms. \'Stigma\' was often under-theorised, and measurement approaches were inconsistent, with 42 instruments used to measure phenomena associated with stigma across 19 quantitative evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistencies in approaches to reduce and measure stigma, potentially reflecting different motivations for intervention development. The primary motivation of many interventions was seemingly to promote drug service engagement and recovery.