ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Perceptions of mental health stigma toward diagnostic labels among health professionals and mental health users: a Delphi study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The stigma associated with mental disorders influences help-seeking behavior, quality of care, and recovery outcomes. Although diagnostic labels are essential for clinical communication and research, they may also evoke negative social perceptions that contribute to discrimination and self-stigma. Accordingly, the present study aimed to evaluate the perceived degree of stigmatization of a set of diagnostic labels for mental disorders, and secondarily to explore their perceived sex-based applicability. Methods: A total of 61 terms, including diagnostic labels derived from the DSM-5 were linguistically transformed into adjectival forms and evaluated using a Delphi methodology. The study was conducted between March and July 2025 and consisted of three sequential rounds. A multidisciplinary panel comprising 36 health professionals and 14 mental health service users rated each label on a 9-point Likert-type scale according to its perceived stigmatizing potential. Consensus was assessed following the criteria established by the RAND Corporation, using percentile distributions and interquartile ranges. Ratings on whether each label was perceived as more commonly associated with men, women, or both equally were also collected. Results: A total of three Delphi rounds were conducted with the aim of achieving the highest possible level of consensus among participants. Of the 61 labels evaluated, 20 reached consensus (32.78%). Among these, 95% were classified as highly stigmatizing and 5% as low in stigma, while none reached consensus for a moderate level of stigmatization. In terms of sex-based applicability, 51% of the labels were perceived as applicable to both sexes, 31% as more applicable to men, and 18% as more applicable to women. Conclusion: Results showed that only a limited number of labels reached consensus regarding their stigmatizing level, highlighting the subjective and complex nature of stigma surrounding diagnostic language.
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.