Social stigma during COVID-19: A systematic review

Abstract

Objectives: Stigmatization was reported throughout the COVID pandemic for COVID-19 patients and close contacts. The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively examine the prevalence and impact of stigmatization during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: English articles were searched using online databases that included PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science up to 24 August 2022. A two-step screening and selection process was followed utilizing an inclusion and exclusion criteria and then data was extracted from eligible articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist was followed, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Seventy-six studies were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-two studies reported the prevalence of social stigma due to COVID-19 infection with social isolation being the most commonly reported stigma. There were 20 studies that reported the majority of participants experienced stigma due to COVID-19 infection, which was as high as 100% of participants in two studies. Participants in 16 studies reported blaming from others as the second most common type of stigma, with various other types reported such as psychological pressure, verbal violence, avoidance, and labeling. The most common effect of the stigma was anxiety followed by depression, and then reduction of socialization. Conclusion: Findings from the present review have identified that COVID-19-related stigma studies have generally focused on its prevalence, type, and outcome. Greater awareness of this topic may assist with improving public education during pandemics such as COVID-19 as well as access to support services for individuals impacted by stigmatization.

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease among Adults in Neno District, Malawi: A Cross-Sectional Analytical Study [Response To Letter]

“…Other studies also found high stigma associated with COVID-19 and vaccinations. 7,8 Lastly, the other highlighted limitations including of use of a fixed ratio of FEV1:FVC to define COPD, low smoking prevalence and inability to distinguishing between COPD phenotypes due to not being able to report TLC and RV, although it is believed that there would be more biomass phenotypes with high biomass exposure are acknowledged in our paper. We look forward to additional opportunities to illuminate further data on COPD with more specific diagnostics and larger cohorts.…”