ArticleHarm reduction journal2026
'The power of universality is that everybody is treated the same': Exploring the possibilities and limitations of a universal approach to stigma reduction among BBV/STI sector stakeholders in Australia.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From language matters to stigma-free communication in diabetes: Evolution, challenges, and next steps.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are increasing calls for cross-cutting approaches to reducing stigma in health systems that do not silo specific identities, conditions, or practices. In our previous work, we proposed a 'universal precautions' approach to addressing stigma and its negative effects (Treloar et al. in Harm Reduct J 19(1):74, 2022), whereby health systems assume that all people who enter a health service might be concerned about being treated negatively or excluded in some way. This paper explores the possibilities and limitations of such an approach to stigma reduction by canvassing key stakeholder perspectives.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 20 key stakeholders with extensive experience working within the alcohol and other drugs, blood-borne viruses, and sexually transmissible infections sectors. Participants were asked to reflect on the concept of a universal precautions approach to stigma reduction, including its acceptability, feasibility, utility in practice, and key challenges.
resultsAlthough interview participants strongly advocated for a need to address all stigma within health care, there were mixed attitudes towards the use of the term, 'universal precautions'. Some participants believed it would be useful to draw on a lexicon more familiar to health workers, while others expressed ambivalence and confusion about the term. Participants reflected on the possibilities of universality, in treating everyone with respect and providing non-judgemental care, while also emphasising that different client populations have specific needs that must be addressed. Many participants emphasised strongly that such an approach would need to be embedded at a systemic level, including having support from executive leadership, to address the structural forces that (re)produce stigma. Participants emphasised that centring the voices and perspectives of people with lived experience of stigma is integral to any approach to reducing stigma in health systems.
conclusionsFindings highlight the various possibilities of adopting a universal approach that recognises the diversity and intersections in experiences of stigma. This research informs the development and implementation of novel stigma reduction initiatives in health care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.