AI Insight
This study evaluated the READ (Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination) anti-stigma training program for medical students in Tunisia, measuring changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills toward people with mental illness. Students who received the training showed significantly improved attitudes (MICA2 scores) and were 4.45 times more likely to demonstrate appropriate clinical behaviors in structured examinations compared to control groups. The improvements were measured immediately after training using validated assessment tools including knowledge schedules, attitude scales, and observed clinical examinations.
Why it matters
Doctors play a critical role in addressing stigma faced by people with mental illness, yet medical professionals themselves can harbor stigmatizing attitudes. This training intervention demonstrates a potentially effective method for reducing stigma among future physicians, which could improve mental health care quality and patient experiences in clinical settings.
Understand the Science
by Lamia Jouini, Uta Ouali, Yosra Zgueb, Emna Bouguira, Ioannis Bakolis, Fethi Nacef, Claire Henderson
Doctors have been identified as having a crucial role in responding to anticipated and experienced stigma of People with Mental Illness (PWMI). This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the READ (Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination), an anti-stigma training for medical students, by measuring changes in their knowledge, attitudes, and skills, in responding to patients anticipated and experienced discrimination. The Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS), the Mental Illness Clinicians’ Attitudes version 2 (MICA2), and an OSCE (Observed Structured Clinical Examination) were used to determine participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards PWMI before and immediately after the training. There was evidence of difference in MICA2 mean total scores in the intervention group were compared to the control group after adjusting for age, gender and MICA baseline mean total scores (MD: −7.88; p < 0.001; 95% CI: −10.23 to −3.96). Moreover, the intervention group was 4.45 times more likely to be scored “pass” in the OSCE compared to the control group (p = 0.046, 95% CI: 1.03 to 19.26) after adjusting for age, gender and OSCE baseline scores. The positive changes in students’ attitudes and skills after the READ training should encourage further research on the causal pathways of this positive relationship.