Page 144 - GHES-3-1

Global Health Economics and
Sustainability
Reducing public stigma related to psychosis

1-month follow-up. The procedures were standardized 3. Results
through online delivery through Qualtrics. Regardless
of the setting, all participants used the same software 3.1. Effects of psychoeducation on public stigma
and followed identical prerecorded instructions. No No significant differences were found between the
additional information was provided by the experimenter intervention and control groups at pre-intervention for
in the lab. All research activities, including reviewing the any subscales (p > 0.05), as shown in Table 2. The mean
information sheet, providing written consent, completing scores for each subscale at pretest, post-test, and follow-up
questionnaires, and participating in the intervention, were for both groups are detailed in Table 3.
conducted electronically. Double-blinding of allocation
outcomes was maintained throughout the data collection As shown in Table 4, the independent samples t-test
period. revealed that the intervention group had significantly
greater changes in scores from pre-intervention to post-
2.4. Intervention intervention than the control group for eight subscales:
The psychoeducational intervention video used in this study fear/dangerousness, help/interact, responsibility,
included several sections: an introduction to psychosis, forcing treatment, empathy, social distancing, social
its incidence and prevalence, anomalous experiences restrictiveness, and prejudice/misconception (p < 0.05).
and paranoid ideation in the general population, a However, the changes in scores for the negative emotions
psychosocial understanding of psychosis, cognitive- and tolerance/support subscales from pre-intervention to
behavioral formulation and interventions for psychosis, post-intervention were not significantly different between
and a case vignette featuring a client’s recovery story the two groups (p > 0.05).
from a CBTp. The active control video followed a similar A two-way mixed ANOVA revealed significant
format but covered obesity: an introduction to obesity, its interactions between time and group for the following
prevalence, experiences of obesity, its development and subscales: fear/dangerousness [F(1.76, 230.58) = 4.89,
maintenance, health implications, lifestyle interventions, p = 0.01, η =.036], help/interact [F(2, 262) = 10.76, p < 0.001,
2
p
and a case vignette with a recovery story. Both videos were η = 0.076], responsibility [F(2, 262) = 3.71, p = 0.03,
2
p
30 min long and featured a slideshow with a voiceover by η = 0.028], and social distancing [F(1.91, 250.11) = 3.56,
2
p
the same narrator. Although the topics differed between p = 0.03, η = 0.026]. Post hoc analyses revealed that the
2
the intervention and active control groups, the format, intervention group maintained a significant reduction in
p
structure, delivery method, narration, and duration were fear/dangerousness (p = 0.26) and a significant increase
kept consistent. The researchers chose a health-related in help/interact (p = 0.09) at follow-up, with these scores
topic for the control group to ensure that any observed
effects were specifically due to the psychoeducation on
psychosis, rather than just exposure to general health Table 2. Independent samples t‑test comparing the baseline
information. scores of the intervention and control groups for AQ and
AMI‑SG subscales
2.5. Data analyses Subscale Intervention Control t (131) p Cohen’s d
An independent samples t-test was used to verify that the M SD M SD
intervention and control groups were equivalent before FD 22.45 9.76 22.89 11.21 0.25 0.81 0.042
the intervention and to compare the change scores from HI 33.36 8.23 34.97 10.49 0.99 0.33 0.171
pre-intervention to post-intervention for each subscale. R 8.66 3.37 8.79 3.84 0.21 0.83 0.036
A mixed ANOVA with a 3 (time: Pre-intervention,
post-intervention, follow-up) × 2 (group: intervention, FT 13.58 4.79 12.86 4.96 −0.85 0.40 −0.147
control) design, including repeated measures for time, was E 20.79 3.56 21.09 3.69 0.48 0.63 0.083
conducted to assess the interaction effect between time NE 7.72 3.58 8.27 3.92 0.85 0.39 0.148
and group for subscales showing significant differences in SD 5.55 2.36 5.56 2.46 0.02 0.98 0.003
the t-test. Post hoc analyses were conducted to determine TS 39.81 3.24 39.11 4.55 −1.02 0.31 −0.177
if significant changes were maintained at follow-up. The SR 5.34 2.04 5.15 2.07 −0.54 0.59 −0.093
AMI-SG and AQ subscales were analyzed separately, as PM 9.99 2.92 9.38 2.78 −1.23 0.22 −0.212
each subscale measures a distinct aspect of public stigma.
All subscales have been individually validated and have Abbreviations: FD: Fear/dangerousness; HI: Help/interact; R:
Responsibility; FT: Forcing treatment; E: Empathy; NE: Negative
demonstrated strong psychometric properties (Brown, emotions; SD: Social distancing; TS: Tolerance/support; SR: Social
2008; Yuan et al.; 2016). restrictiveness; PM: Prejudice/misconception.

Volume 3 Issue 1 (2025) 136 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.3363