Background ‘Intersectional stigma’ is a concept that has emerged to characterize the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a person or group, and to address their joint effects on health and wellbeing. While enquiry into the intersections of race, class, and gender serves as the historical and theoretical basis for intersectional stigma, there is little consensus on how best to characterize and analyze intersectional stigma, or on how to design interventions to address this complex phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to highlight existing intersectional stigma literature, identify gaps in our methods for studying and addressing intersectional stigma, provide examples illustrating promising analytical approaches, and elucidate priorities for future health research. Discussion Evidence from the existing scientific literature, as well as the examples presented here, suggest that people in diverse settings experience intersecting forms of stigma that influence their mental and physical health and corresponding health behaviors. As different stigmas are often correlated and interrelated, the health impact of intersectional stigma is complex, generating a broad range of vulnerabilities and risks. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches are required to reduce the significant knowledge gaps that remain in our understanding of intersectional stigma, shared identity, and their effects on health. Conclusions Stigmatized identities, while often analyzed in isolation, do not exist in a vacuum. Intersecting forms of stigma are a common reality, yet they remain poorly understood. The development of instruments and methods to better characterize the mechanisms and effects of intersectional stigma in relation to various health conditions around the globe is vital. Only then will healthcare providers, public health officials, and advocates be able to design health interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of shared identity, while reducing the burden of stigma.

Background Stigma is associated with health conditions that drive disease burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including HIV, tuberculosis, mental health problems, epilepsy, and substance use disorders. However, the literature discussing the relationship between stigma and health outcomes is largely fragmented within disease-specific siloes, thus limiting the identification of common moderators or mechanisms through which stigma potentiates adverse health outcomes as well as the development of broadly relevant stigma mitigation interventions. Methods We conducted a scoping review to provide a critical overview of the breadth of research on stigma for each of the five aforementioned conditions in LMICs, including their methodological strengths and limitations. Results Across the range of diseases and disorders studied, stigma is associated with poor health outcomes, including help- and treatment-seeking behaviors. Common methodological limitations include a lack of prospective studies, non-representative samples resulting in limited generalizability, and a dearth of data on mediators and moderators of the relationship between stigma and health outcomes. Conclusions Implementing effective stigma mitigation interventions at scale necessitates transdisciplinary longitudinal studies that examine how stigma potentiates the risk for adverse outcomes for high-burden health conditions in community-based samples in LMICs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1250-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Eighty percent of people with epilepsy (PWE) reside in low-income countries where stigma contributes substantially to social and medical morbidity. Peer support groups (PSGs) are thought to be beneficial for people with stigmatized conditions, but little data exists regarding PSG effectiveness. We facilitated monthly PSG meetings for men, women, and youth from three Zambian clinics for one year. Pre- and post-intervention assessments measured internalized stigma, psychiatric morbidity, medication adherence, socioeconomic status, and community disclosure. Of 103 participants (39 men, 30 women, 34 youth), 80 PWE (78%) attended ≥6 meetings. There were no significant demographic differences between PWE that attended ≥6 vs. <6 meetings. Among youth attending ≥6 meetings, internalized stigma decreased (p<0.02). Among adults, there was a non-significant stigma decrease. No differences were detected in medication use, adherence, or psychiatric morbidity. PSGs effectively reduce stigma for youth and may offer a low-cost approach to addressing epilepsy-associated stigma in resource-poor settings.