| Literature DB >> 33866378 |
Louisa Codjoe1, Sarah Barber2, Shalini Ahuja3, Graham Thornicroft3, Claire Henderson2, Heidi Lempp4, Joelyn N'Danga-Koroma2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are significant documented inequalities for the Black community in the UK in relation to mental health care. Research has also indicated that cultural difference exists in pathways into, and engagement with, mental health services. To reduce inequalities and improve engagement with mental health services, it is important that professionals utilise culturally appropriate community networks to increase mental health awareness and reduce stigma. This systematic review considers research in Black faith settings, with two linked aims to review the evidence for the effectiveness of (i) mental health interventions, and (ii) other health stigma interventions as the latter have been implemented in Black faith settings. The review identified 'active ingredients' of interventions for this population that can be applied in future work. The authors seek to draw from the mental health and wider health stigma literature to inform the design of the ON TRAC project, a collaborative partnership between King's College London, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Black faith community groups in Southwark and Lambeth, London, in this currently under-researched area.Entities:
Keywords: Black community; Faith community; Intervention; Mental Health; Stigma
Year: 2021 PMID: 33866378 PMCID: PMC8053235 DOI: 10.1007/s00127-021-02068-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol ISSN: 0933-7954 Impact factor: 4.328
Fig. 1PRISMA Flow Diagram
Characteristics of included studies
| Study | Location | Focused condition | Faith involvementa | Target population descriptionb | Intervention type | Design | Outcomes | Psychometric properties of outcome measures | Quality assessment | ICROMS risk of bias scorec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Aaron et al. [ | USA | HIV stigma | Collaborative | Black faith congregation (adults and adolescents), 69 | Workshop | Non-controlled before-after | Knowledge score, session attendance, HIV screening rate | Non standardised | Low | 12 (22) |
| 2. Anthony et al. [ | USA | Depression | Faith placed | Black faith leaders, 42 | Workshop | Non-controlled before-after | Depression knowledge score (DAQ) | This scale showed good internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.84; satisfactory test–retest reliability: intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.62 (95% C.I. 0.37 to 0.78) [ | Low | 17 (22) |
| 3. Brown et al. [ | USA | Mental health | Faith placed | Black faith congregation, 110 | Workshop | Non-controlled before-after | Mental illness stigma (AQ-SF) | AQ-SF- self report measure of public stigma towards mental illness. A factor analysis yielded alphas that ranged from 0.60 to .93. Intraclass correlations were tested over the course of a week and had test–retest reliability ranging from 0.74 to 0.90 [ The Level of Familiarity Scale (LOF) assesses how familiar an individual is with mental illness. The psychometric properties of the LOF suggest that it is a reliable and valid measure of familiarity with mental illness [ | Low | 21 (22) |
| 4. Coleman et al. [ | South Carolina, USA | HIV stigma | Collaborative | Black faith congregation and wider Black community, 30 | Prevention programme | Qualitative (1:1 interviews and focus groups) | Thematic | n/a | Adequate | 24 (16) |
| 5. Crewe [18] | USA | Mental health | Collaborative/Faith placed | Wider Black community, 228 | Workshops | Non-controlled before-after | Knowledge | Low | 9 (22) | |
| 6. Griffith et al. [ | Michigan, USA | HIV stigma | Faith based | Black faith leaders and Black faith congregation, 253 | Training programme | Non-controlled before-after | Knowledge, stigma | Non-standardised measures | Low | 10 (18) |
| 7. Johnson and Van Hecke [ | Milwaukee, USA | Autism | Faith based | Black faith leaders, 14 | Training programme | Non-controlled before-after | Screening and referral, knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy | Low | 16 (22) | |
| 8. Mantovani et al. [ | London, UK | Mental health | Faith based | Black faith congregation, 13 | Training programme | Qualitative (1:1 interviews) | Thematic | n/a | Adequate | 25 (16) |
| 9. Mynatt et al. [ | USA | Depression | Faith based | Black faith congregation, 9 | Group support session | Non-controlled before-after | Depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and loneliness scales | Low | 15 (22) | |
| 10. Suite et al. [ | New York, USA | Trauma | Faith placed | Black faith congregation, 426 | Workshop | Non-controlled before-after | Knowledge | Low | 12 (22) | |
| 11. Berkley-Patton et al. [ | Kansas City, USA | HIV stigma | Faith based | Black faith congregation, 543 | Multicomponent (outreach, church services, ministry groups) | Cluster randomised controlled trial | Stigma and satisfaction | Religiosity was measured with a summation of the seven-item version of the Religious Background and Behavior Scale HIV Knowledge Questionnaire V stigma items were selected from national studies on HIV stigma [ | Low | 20 (22) |
| 12. Mashamba et al. [ | Limpopo province, South Africa | HIV stigma | Faith based | Black faith leaders (faith healers), 103 | Training programe | Randomised control trial | Knowledge and attitudes | Aids related stigma scale (Kalichman et al. 2005). This scale is internally consistent, alpha = 0.75 and time stable over 3 months, r = 0.67 (Kalichman et al. 2005). This was adapted for use in this study | Adequate | 24 (22) |
| 13. Daniels and Archibald [ | Maryland, USA | Mental health (well-being) | Faith placed | Black faith congregation, 29 | Congregation meetings | Qualitative (focus groups) | Thematic | n/a | Low | 5 (16) |
| 14. Gum et al. [ | Florida, USA | Mental health | Collaborative | Black faith congregation, 129 | Congregation meeting | Qualitative (focus groups) | Logic model | n/a | Adequate | 22 (16) |
| 15. Hankerson and Weissman [ | Mental health | Systematic review | n/a | |||||||
| 16. Hays and Aranda [ | Mental health | Systematic review | n/a |
aFaith involvement = Faith placed, Faith based, Collaborative
bTarget population description = Black faith leaders/Black faith congregation/wider Black community, no. of participants
cICROMS risk of bias score suggested minimum for study design
Fig. 2Framework for faith-based mental health awareness and stigma interventions adapted from Coleman et al. 2016.
Results by category, level and concept
| Category | Level and concept |
|---|---|
Elements present before the adoption or implementation of the intervention | ‘Buy in’ of proposed initiative Pre-existing dialogue around Mental Health or initiatives Trust in the Church |
Factors that facilitated the implementation and success of the intervention | Balance between faith beliefs and health Acceptability of intervention Leadership support Identification of faith community health professionals Effective community engagement |
Factors that functioned as barriers to implementation | Denial of the existence of mental illness Fear of/stigma Impact of stigma Lack of confidence in mental health service Mistrust of mental health services |
Factors that influenced the delivery of the intervention | Culturally relevant frameworks and models Development of meaningful collaborations Funding and sustainability of the proposed initiative Training and support of church community members Ethnicity of staff Flexibility of staff in relation to faith communities Transparency of external organisations Use of champions |
Changes that were attributed to the intervention | Empowerment Improved attitudes about mental illness Increased capacity around mental illness Increased knowledge about mental illness Increased social contact with people suffering from mental health difficulties Establishment of Social capital Church influencing mental health policy Increased capacity |