BACKGROUND: Policy is receiving increasing attention in the field of implementation science. However, there remains a lack of clear, concise guidance about how policy can be conceptualized in implementation science research. Building on Currans article Implementation science made too simple-which defines the thing as the intervention, practice, or innovation in need of implementation support-we offer a typology of four very basic ways to conceptualize policy in implementation science research. We provide examples of studies that have conceptualized policy in these different ways and connect aspects of the typology to established frameworks in the field. The typology simplifies and refines related typologies in the field. Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science research. 1) Policy as something to adopt: an evidence-supported policy proposal is conceptualized as the thing and the goal of research is to understand how policymaking processes can be modified to increase adoption, and thus reach, of the evidence-supported policy. Policy-focused dissemination research is well-suited to achieve this goal. 2) Policy as something to implement: a policy, evidence-supported or not, is conceptualized as the thing and the goal of research is to generate knowledge about how policy rollout (or policy de-implementation) can be optimized to maximize benefits for population health and health equity. Policy-focused implementation research is well-suited to achieve this goal. 3) Policy as context to understand: an evidence-supported intervention is the thing and policies are conceptualized as a fixed determinant of implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand the mechanisms through which policies affect implementation of the evidence-supported intervention. 4) Policy as strategy to use: an evidence-supported intervention is the thing and policy is conceptualized as a strategy to affect implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand, and ideally test, how policy strategies affect implementation outcomes related to the evidence-supported intervention. CONCLUSION: Policy can be conceptualized in multiple, non-mutually exclusive ways in implementation science. Clear conceptualizations of these distinctions are important to advancing the field of policy-focused implementation science and promoting the integration of policy into the field more broadly.

Background

Many health conditions perceived to be contagious, dangerous or incurable, or resulting in clearly visible signs, share a common attribute - an association with stigma and discrimination. While the etiology of stigma may differ between conditions and, sometimes, cultural settings, the manifestations and psychosocial consequences of stigma and discrimination are remarkably similar. However, the vast majority of studies measuring stigma or addressing stigma through interventions employ a disease-specific approach.

Main body

The current paper opposes this siloed approach and advocates a generic concept of 'health-related stigma' in both stigma measurement and stigma interventions. Employing a conceptual model adapted from Weiss, the current paper demonstrates the commonalities among several major stigmatized conditions by examining how several stigma measurement instruments, such as the Social Distance Scale, Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue, Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness, and Berger stigma scale, and stigma reduction interventions, such as information-based approaches, contact with affected persons, (peer) counselling, and skills building and empowerment, were used successfully across a variety of conditions to measure or address stigma. The results demonstrate that 'health-related stigma' is a viable concept with clearly identifiable characteristics that are similar across a variety of stigmatized health conditions in very diverse cultures.

Conclusion

A more generic approach to the study of health-related stigma opens up important practical opportunities - cross-cutting measurement and intervention tools are resource saving and easier to use for personnel working with multiple conditions, allow for comparison between conditions, and recognize the intersectionality of many types of stigma. Further research is needed to build additional evidence demonstrating the advantages and effectiveness of cross-condition approaches to stigma measurement and interventions.

Background

Despite advances that the psychosis "clinical high-risk" (CHR) identification offers, risk of stigma exists. Awareness of and agreement with stereotypes has not yet been evaluated in CHR individuals. Furthermore, the relative stigma associated with symptoms, as opposed to the label of risk, is not known, which is critical because CHR identification may reduce symptom-related stigma.

Methods

Thirty-eight CHR subjects were ascertained using standard measures from the Center of Prevention and Evaluation/New York State Psychiatric Institute/ Columbia University. Labeling-related measures adapted to the CHR group included "stereotype awareness and self-stigma" ("Stereotype awareness", "Stereotype Agreement", "Negative emotions [shame]"), and a parallel measure of "Negative emotions (shame)" for symptoms. These measures were examined in relation to symptoms of anxiety and depression, adjusting for core CHR symptoms (e.g. attenuated psychotic symptoms).

Results

CHR participants endorsed awareness of mental illness stereotypes, but largely did not themselves agree with these stereotypes. Furthermore, CHR participants described more stigma associated with symptoms than they did with the risk-label itself. Shame related to symptoms was associated with depression, while shame related to the risk-label was associated with anxiety.

Conclusion

Both stigma of the risk-label and of symptoms contribute to the experience of CHR individuals. Stereotype awareness was relatively high and labeling-related shame was associated with increased anxiety. Yet limited agreement with stereotypes indicated that labeling-related stigma had not fully permeated self-conceptions. Furthermore, symptom-related stigma appeared more salient overall and was linked with increased depression, suggesting that alleviating symptom-related shame via treating symptoms might provide major benefit.

BACKGROUND: Identifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves. METHODS: 148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects. FINDINGS: The majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6% vs. 27.7%). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95% CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p < 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95% CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: Nonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the appeal of early intervention in psychosis, there is concern that identifying youth as having high psychosis risk (PR) may trigger stigma. This study employed a pre-post design to measure change in PR participants emotions about PR upon being told of their PR status and according to whether this was the first time receiving this information. METHODS: Participants (n = 54) identified as at PR via structured interview rated their emotions about PR before and after being told they were at PR. Qualitative analyses explored the valence of participant reflections on being given this information. RESULTS: Participants reported significantly less negative emotion after being told of their PR status (p < .001), regardless of whether they were hearing this for the first time (p = .72). There was no change in positive emotions or the predominant belief that they should keep their PR status private. Most participants commented positively about the process of feedback but negatively about its impact on their self-perceptions and/or expectations of others perceptions of them. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to collect pre-post data related to being told one is at PR and to examine quantitative and qualitative responses across and within individuals. For a majority of participants, clinical feedback stimulated negative stereotypes even as it relieved some distress. To actively address internalized stigma, clinicians providing feedback to PR youth must attend to the positive and negative impacts on how youth think about themselves as well as how they feel.

Self-stigma has been associated with reduced accuracy of face emotion recognition in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR). Stigma may also relate to slowing of performance during cognitive tasks for which a negative stereotype is relevant. This study aimed to investigate the association of mental illness stigma with face emotion recognition among CHR individuals. Participants were 143 CHR individuals identified using the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS). Face emotion recognition was assessed using the Penn Emotion Recognition Task (ER-40). Stigma was assessed using discrimination, stereotype awareness, and stereotype agreement subscales of the Mental Health Attitudes Interview for CHR. We tested associations of ER-40 accuracy and response times with these stigma variables, including the role of clinical and demographic factors. Racial/ethnic minoritized participants had higher attenuated positive symptoms than non-minoritized participants. Longer ER-40 response times were correlated with greater stereotype agreement (r=.17, p=.045) and discrimination (r=.22, p=.012). A regression model predicting ER-40 response times revealed an interaction of stereotype agreement with minoritized status (p=.008), with slower response times for minoritized participants as stereotype agreement increased. Greater disorganized symptoms and male gender also predicted longer response times. ER-40 accuracy was not associated with stigma. Overall, minoritized CHR individuals with greater internalized stigma took longer to identify face emotions. Future research is needed to assess whether slower response times are specific to social cues, and if internalized stigma interferes with performance in real-world social situations. Reducing stigma may be an important target for interventions that aim to improve social skills.