Lessons learned from the translation of the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale into isiXhosa for use with South African Xhosa people with schizophrenia.

Internalised stigma is highly prevalent among people with mental illness. This is concerning because internalised stigma is often associated with negative consequences affecting individuals' personal, familial, social, and overall wellbeing, employment opportunities and recovery. Currently, there is no psychometrically validated instrument to measure internalised stigma among Xhosa people in their home language. Our study aimed to translate the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale into isiXhosa. Following WHO guidelines, the ISMI scale was translated using a five-stage translation design which included (i) forward-translation, (ii) back-translation, (iii) committee approach, (iv) quantitative piloting, and (v) qualitative piloting using cognitive interviews. The ISMI isiXhosa version (ISMI-X) underwent psychometric testing to establish utility, within-scale validity, convergent, divergent, and content validity (assessed using frequency of endorsements and cognitive interviewing) with n = 65 Xhosa people with schizophrenia. The resultant ISMI-X scale demonstrated good psychometric utility, internal consistency for the overall scale (α = .90) and most subscales (α > .70, except the Stigma Resistance subscale where α = .57), convergent validity between the ISMI Discrimination Experiences subscale and the Discrimination and Stigma (DISC) scale's Treated Unfairly subscale (r = .34, p = .03) and divergent validity between the ISMI Stigma Resistance and DISC Treated Unfairly subscales (r = .13, p = .49). But more importantly the study provides valuable insights into strengths and limitations of the present translation design. Specifically, validation methods such as assessing frequency of endorsements of scale items and using cognitive interviewing to establish conceptual clarity and relevance of items may be useful in small piloting sample sizes.

Participant views on practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic research results: a case study from Botswana.

Key to discussions around feedback of individual results from genomics research are practical questions on how such results should be fed back, by who and when. However, there has been virtually no work investigating these practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic results in the context of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Africa. Consequently, we conducted deliberative focus group discussions with 6 groups of adolescents (n = 44) who previously participated in a genomics study in Botswana as well as 6 groups of parents and caregivers (n = 49) of children who participated in the same study. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 6 adolescents and 6 parents or caregivers. Our findings revealed that both adolescents and parents would prefer to receive their individual genetic results in person, with adolescents preferring researchers to provide feedback, while parents preferred doctors who are associated with the study. Both adolescents and parents further expressed that feedback should be supported by counselling but differed on the timing of feedback, with preferences ranging from feedback as quickly as possible to feedback at project end. In conclusion, decisions on practicalities for feedback of results should be done in account of participants' context and considerations of participants' preferences.

Addressing diversity and inclusion challenges in global neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics research.

Advancements in neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics offer significant opportunities for better understanding the human brain, behavior and associated disorders. Such advancements may help us prevent, manage and/or cure complex conditions. The serious challenge confronted by these disciplines however is diversity. Both fields lack diversity in terms of genomic reference datasets needed for discovery research, engagement of diverse communities in translational research and in terms of diverse and multidisciplinary scientific teams. This is a challenge because diversity is needed on all levels in order to increase representation and inclusion of all populations across the globe as we move research activities forward. The lack of diversity can translate to an inability to use scientific innovations from these fields for the benefit of all people everywhere and signifies a missed opportunity to address pervasive global health inequities. In this commentary we identify three persistent barriers to reaching diversity targets while focusing on discovery and translational science. Additionally, we propose four suggestions on how to advance efforts and rapidly move towards achieving diversity and inclusion in neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics. Without systematically addressing the diversity gap within these fields, the benefits of the science may not be relevant and accessible to all people.

Participants' Preferences and Reasons for Wanting Feedback of Individual Genetic Research Results From an HIV-TB Genomic Study: A Case Study From Botswana.

The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one' situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants' context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results.

Evaluating Community Engagement Strategies to Manage Stigma in Two African Genomics Studies Involving People Living with Schizophrenia or Rheumatic Heart Disease.

In global health research and genomics research specifically, community engagement has gained prominence in enhancing ethical conduct, particularly in managing the risk of stigmatization, but there is minimal scientific evidence on how to do this effectively. This article reports on community engagement evaluation strategies in two African genomics studies: the Stigma in African Genomics Research study and the Genomics of Schizophrenia in South African Xhosa People (SAX) study. Within the Stigma in African Genomics Research study, a self-report rating scale and open-ended questions were used to track participant responses to an experiential theatre workshop. The workshop focused on participant experiences of living with schizophrenia or rheumatic heart disease (RHD). While the schizophrenia group reported more alienation and less stigma resistance than the RHD group, both groups demonstrated increased stigma resistance over time, after participating in the workshops. Hearing from others living with and managing the same illness normalised participants' own experiences and encouraged them. Within the SAX study, a short rating scale and qualitative feedback methods were used to evaluate a Mental Health Literacy Day targeting mental health stigma. Information talks about (i) the symptoms of schizophrenia and treatment options and (ii) the illness experiences of a patient in recovery were rated as the most helpful on the day. Audience members reported that these talks challenged negative perceptions about severe mental illness. Three important learnings emerged from these evaluations: firstly, integration of evaluation strategies at the research study planning phase is likely to promote more effective community engagement. Secondly, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods that draw on simple descriptive statistics and thematic analysis can provide nuanced perspectives about the value of community engagement. Thirdly, such evidence is necessary in establishing and promoting the science of community engagement in genomics research and health research more broadly.

The role of causal knowledge in stigma considerations in African genomics research: Views of South African Xhosa people.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in genomics research have raised several ethical concerns. One concern is the potential impact of genomics research on stigma experienced by people affected by a disease. Studies have found that the type of illness as well as disease causal beliefs impact on the relation between genetic attribution and stigma. This study explored the potential impact of genetic attribution of disease on stigma among Xhosa people with Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD). METHODS: Study participants were 46 Xhosa people with RHD living in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Using video vignettes in 7 focus group discussions we explored whether and how genetic attribution may impact on disease-stigma. Vignettes introduced participants to non-genetic and genetic causal explanations and were followed-up with a series of open-ended questions eliciting their perceptions of non-genetic disease causes as well as genetic causation and its impact on internalised stigma. RESULTS: This study found that Xhosa people with RHD have a general understanding of genetics and genetic attribution for disease. Additionally, and not withstanding their genetic knowledge, these participants hold multiple disease causal beliefs including genetic, infectious disease, psychosocial, behavioural and cultural explanations. While there was evidence of internalised stigma experiences among participants, these appeared not to be related to a genetic attribution to the disease. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study provide clues as to why it is unlikely that a genetic conceptualisation of disease impacts internalised stigma experiences of Xhosa people. The causal explanations provided by participants reflect their cultural understandings and their context, namely, living in low-income and poverty-stricken environments. Divergence in these findings from much of the evidence from high-income countries emphasises that context matters when considering the impact of genetic attribution on stigma and caution against generalising findings from one part of the globe to another.

Exploring how a genetic attribution to disease relates to stigma experiences of Xhosa patients with schizophrenia in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Over the past three decades, a range of international stakeholders have highlighted the possibility that genomic research may impact stigma associated with psychiatric disorders. Limited research has been conducted in Africa to investigate this relation. METHOD: In the present study, using focus group discussions, we explored the relation between genetic attribution and stigma among 36 Xhosa people with schizophrenia. We addressed three main questions: (1) What causal beliefs do Xhosa people with schizophrenia use to explain their illness and to what extent do genetic explanations play a role in these beliefs? (2) What are the internalised stigma experiences of Xhosa people with schizophrenia? (3) How do genetic explanations relate to stigma experiences, if at all? RESULTS: Most participants were able to define genetics and some linked genetics to disease causation. Despite adequate knowledge of genetics and an emphasis on genetic explanations of schizophrenia in the study, most participants held a multitude of causal explanations including: psychosocial, environmental, and cultural. Moreover, participants rarely mentioned disease cause when describing their stigma experiences. DISCUSSION: For this population group, there was no straight-forward relation between a genetic attribution and stigma. Therefore, we did not find evidence that genetic attribution may significantly increase stigma. Although North American and European literature provides conflicting evidence regarding this relation, there is increased consensus that biomedical explanations for psychiatric disorders may reduce blame. This study found evidence supporting that consensus. This study provides an empirical foundation to inform ongoing work on the psychosocial implications of psychiatric genomics research in non-Western contexts.

Does genetics matter for disease-related stigma? The impact of genetic attribution on stigma associated with rheumatic heart disease in the Western Cape, South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: A common concern in African genomic research is that such work may cause, or increase, stigma associated with particular diseases or population groups. While there is some evidence suggesting that genetic attribution of disease might impact stigma, there exists no evidence for the situation in African populations. With increasing genomic research in African populations, questions about the effect of genetic attribution on disease-related stigma are salient for stakeholders involved in implementation and regulation. To understand better the relationship between stigma and genetic attribution, we interviewed people with Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) in the Western Cape of South Africa. METHOD: We conducted 11 focus group discussions with RHD patients of mixed-ancestry in the Western Cape, exploring the impact of genetic attribution on stigma. Participants had previously consented to participate in genomic research, attending information sessions on genetics. We explored the impact of genetic attribution by introducing both genetic and environmental causes to RHD and by specifically probing how these various causes would likely impact selected features of disease stigma. RESULTS: Participants reported varying experiences of stigma relating to RHD, such as labelling, social exclusion and discrimination at the workplace. They had some understanding of genetics, either in general, or in relation to their illness. Participants' understanding depicted multiple causal models to explain RHD including genetic, environmental and bacterial causation. Overall, participants did not make a connection between genetics as a cause of RHD and their experiences of stigma. DISCUSSION: In this study we found no support for the concern that genetic attribution of RHD, understood by participants in our study as a genetic predisposition to developing the disease, would impact stigma associated with it. Our findings provide some reassurance that genomic research may be unlikely to cause an increase in disease-related stigma in the South African context.