To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials.

Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO ‘Evidence to Decision’ framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677).

The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders.

These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

This systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma among medical and nursing students in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.

Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, professional students in medicine and nursing, and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full texts was done with the software MAXQDA. Full texts were analysed with regard to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a methodological quality assessment was undertaken.

A total of nine studies from six countries (Brazil, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somaliland and Turkey) were included. All studies reported significant results in at least one outcome measure. However, from the available literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the most effective interventions. No meta-analysis could be calculated due to the large heterogeneity of intervention content, evaluation design and outcome measures. Studies with contact interventions (either face-to-face or video) demonstrated attitudinal change. There was a clear lack of studies focusing on discriminatory behaviours. Accordingly, training of specific communication and clinical skills was lacking in most studies, with the exception of one study that showed a positive effect of training interview skills on attitudes. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented. The methodological quality of most studies was relatively low, with the exception of two studies.

There is an increase in studies on anti-stigma interventions among professional students in LMICs. Some of these studies used contact interventions and showed positive effects. A stronger focus on clinical and communication skills and behaviour-related outcomes is needed in future studies.

This systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.

Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.

A total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.

More rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.