
==== Front
PLOS Glob Public Health
PLOS Glob Public Health
plos
PLOS Global Public Health
2767-3375
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624
PGPH-D-24-00397
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Endocrinology
Endocrine Disorders
Diabetes Mellitus
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Metabolic Disorders
Diabetes Mellitus
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Mood Disorders
Depression
People and Places
Geographical Locations
Asia
India
Medicine and health sciences
Diagnostic medicine
Diabetes diagnosis and management
HbA1c
Biology and life sciences
Biochemistry
Proteins
Hemoglobin
HbA1c
Social Sciences
Sociology
Education
Schools
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Social Sciences
Sociology
Education
Educational Attainment
Medicine and Health Sciences
Endocrinology
Endocrine Disorders
Diabetes Mellitus
Type 2 Diabetes
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Metabolic Disorders
Diabetes Mellitus
Type 2 Diabetes
A mediation analysis evaluating change in self-stigma on diabetes outcomes among people with depression in urban India: A secondary analysis from the INDEPENDENT trial of the collaborative care model
Self-stigma, diabetes, and depression in urban India
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1178-6937
Halliday Scott Conceptualization Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Software Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4076-0170
Rao Deepa Conceptualization Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0005-3968
Augusto Orvalho Conceptualization Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Software Validation Writing – review & editing 1 3 4
Poongothai Subramani Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 5 6
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-8777
Sosale Aravind Data curation Writing – review & editing 7
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7446-1251
Sridhar Gumpeny R. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 8
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4604-1986
Tandon Nikhil Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 9
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4563-7841
Sagar Rajesh Data curation Writing – review & editing 10
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0082-5857
Patel Shivani A. Data curation Writing – review & editing 11
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8621-5405
Narayan K. M. Venkat Conceptualization Funding acquisition Writing – review & editing 11
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4574-847X
Johnson Leslie C. M. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 11 12
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3351-7175
Wagenaar Bradley H. Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 13
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6357-4883
Huh David Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 14
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8369-9851
Flaherty Brian P. Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 15
Chwastiak Lydia A. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7266-2503
Ali Mohammed K. Conceptualization Funding acquisition Project administration Resources Supervision Writing – review & editing 11 12
Mohan Viswanathan Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 5 6
INDEPENDENT Study Group
1 Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
3 Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique
4 Manhiça Health Research Centre (CISM), Maputo, Mozambique
5 Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, Chennai, India
6 Dr. Mohan’s Diabetes Specialities Centre, Chennai, India
7 Diabetes Care and Research Center, Diacon Hospital, Bangalore, India
8 Endocrine and Diabetes Center, Visakhapatnam, India
9 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
10 Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
11 Emory Global Diabetes Research Center, Woodruff Health Sciences Center and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
12 Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
13 Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
14 School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
15 Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Singh Parvati Editor
The Ohio State University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SH is a technical adviser for the non-profit organization Possible for which he receives no compensation. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: shallid@uw.edu
4 9 2024
2024
4 9 e000362415 3 2024
30 7 2024
© 2024 Halliday et al
2024
Halliday et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Self-stigma–the internalization of negative community attitudes and beliefs about a disease or condition–represents an important barrier to improving patient care outcomes for people living with common mental disorders and diabetes. Integrated behavioral healthcare interventions are recognized as evidence-based approaches to improve access to behavioral healthcare and for improving patient outcomes, including for those with comorbid diabetes, yet their impact on addressing self-stigma remains unclear. Using secondary data from the Integrating Depression and Diabetes Treatment (INDEPENDENT) study–a trial that aimed to improve diabetes outcomes for people with undertreated and comorbid depression in four urban Indian cities via the Collaborative Care Model–we longitudinally analyzed self-stigma scores and evaluated whether change in total self-stigma scores on diabetes outcomes is mediated by depressive symptom severity. Self-stigma scores did not differ longitudinally comparing Collaborative Care Model participants to enhanced standard-of-care participants (mean monthly rate of change in Self-Stigma Scale for Chronic Illness-4 Item scores; B = 0.0087; 95% CI: -0.0018, 0.019, P = .10). Decreases in total self-stigma scores over 12 months predicted diabetes outcomes at 12 months (HbA1c, total effect; B = 0.070 95%CI: 0.0032, 0.14; P < .05), however depressive symptoms did not mediate this relationship (average direct effect; B = 0.064; 95% CI: -0.0043, 0.13, P = .069). Considering the local and plural notions of stigma in India, further research is needed on culturally grounded approaches to measure and address stigma in India, and on the role of integrated care delivery models alongside multi-level stigma reduction interventions.

Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02022111. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02022111.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000025 National Institute of Mental Health R01MH100390 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7266-2503
Ali Mohammed K. This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant R01MH100390) with LC, MA, and VM as Principal Investigators receiving the grant and the University of Washington Behavioral Research Center for HIV (BIRCH), a National Institute of Mental Health-funded program (P30 MH123248). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Data AvailabilityDeidentified participant data are available upon email request to the Emory Global Diabetes Research Center: egdrc@emory.edu. Requesters should be employees of a recognized academic institution or health service organizations. Requesters must have experience in medical research and must be able to demonstrate their ability to carry out the proposed use of the requested dataset through their peer-review publications in the area of interest. Data sharing will only be for the purposes of health and medical research and within the constraints of the consent under which the data were originally gathered. The requester(s) will be required to enter into a Data Sharing Agreement with Emory University. The statistical software code used in this analysis is contained in Supplemental File 2.
Data Availability

Deidentified participant data are available upon email request to the Emory Global Diabetes Research Center: egdrc@emory.edu. Requesters should be employees of a recognized academic institution or health service organizations. Requesters must have experience in medical research and must be able to demonstrate their ability to carry out the proposed use of the requested dataset through their peer-review publications in the area of interest. Data sharing will only be for the purposes of health and medical research and within the constraints of the consent under which the data were originally gathered. The requester(s) will be required to enter into a Data Sharing Agreement with Emory University. The statistical software code used in this analysis is contained in Supplemental File 2.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Negative attitudes and beliefs held by a community or group about a disease or condition that is devalued may lead to stigmatization, but the process of internalizing those attitudes and beliefs by a person living with that disease may result in self-stigma. Self-stigma can be experienced by people with various conditions including depression, anxiety [1–3], and diabetes [4]. While self-stigma may limit access to care and treatment-seeking, it can also negatively impact ongoing participation for those already receiving treatment and their care-related outcomes [3,5,6] Importantly, negative attitudes and beliefs associated with self-stigma can be reinforced by healthcare providers. For example, providers may treat diabetic patients unfairly due to their weight, which may further the internalization of blame and judgement [7]. Healthcare systems may be under-resourced to treat mental disorders, which can re-affirm beliefs among patients with mental disorders that they are not worthy of treatment [8,9].

In India, where estimates indicate that 10% of Indian adults live with a common mental disorder [10], 11% of Indian adults live with diabetes [11], and many live with both comorbid depression and diabetes [12], studies suggest that stigma might be prevalent among people living with common mental disorders [2,13–17] and diabetes [18–21]. Yet Indian primary care providers may receive little training in diagnosing or managing mental disorders, face shortages of psychotropic medications, deliver care in settings with little privacy for patients, and reinforce misconceptions about mental disorders or hold discriminatory attitudes towards people with mental disorders [22–25]. As a result, visiting a healthcare provider in India can lead to or exacerbate the stigmatization of common mental disorders [22–25]. Stigma thus represents an important barrier, among other access-related barriers (e.g., an insufficient number of mental health and diabetes specialists given the burden of disease) to improving the quality of patient outcomes for people living with these conditions [10,26].

Integrated behavioral healthcare (BH) interventions are healthcare system interventions where specialty BH providers are incorporated into primary care or medical specialty settings with the goal of improving care coordination, represent options to improve patient outcomes [27] and are widely endorsed by national and international bodies [5]. There is limited evidence suggesting that integrated interventions can reduce stigma around accessing mental healthcare services, including in South Asia [28–30]. However, the effect of integrated BH interventions on reducing self-stigma specifically remains understudied [31–33]. The Integrating Depression and Diabetes Treatment (INDEPENDENT) study demonstrated the effectiveness of a specific integrated care model, the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM), in improving clinical outcomes for patients living with comorbid depression and type 2 diabetes who received treatment in four tertiary urban diabetes clinics in India [34]. It remains unclear whether or not integrated BH interventions like CoCM lead to improvements in self-stigma over time and if changes in self-stigma predict these patient health outcomes.

In the INDEPENDENT trial, four urban diabetes clinics in India tested CoCM as an intervention in part as undertreated depression was viewed as a barrier to improving clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes [34]. Considering that healthcare providers and facilities in India can be the cause of or perpetuate stigma, particularly among people living with common mental disorders [22,23,25], we proposed that an integrated BH intervention such as CoCM may reduce levels of self-stigma due to patients receiving depression treatment in a familiar clinical setting rather than at a potentially stigmatizing specialist provider via referral. As such, depression treatment would mediate the relationship between change in self-stigma and diabetes outcomes.

We drew on data from the INDEPENDENT trial implementing CoCM at four urban diabetes clinics in India to address two objectives. First, we analyzed self-stigma scores longitudinally to compare participants assigned to CoCM versus enhanced standard-of-care. Second, we evaluated whether change in self-stigma on type 2 diabetes outcomes is mediated by depressive symptoms.

Methods

Data sources and participants

We used secondary data collected during the INDEPENDENT trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02022111) for integrating care for depression among adult participants with type 2 diabetes via CoCM. The full study protocol [35] and primary trial results [34] have been previously published elsewhere. In this pragmatic trial, patients at four urban diabetes clinic sites (one public hospital in Delhi and three private clinics in Chennai, Visakhapatnam, and Bengaluru) were individually randomized to receive either 12 months of enhanced standard care or CoCM and then passively followed up to 36 months. The enhancement to standard care involved notifying diabetes physicians of their patients’ depressive symptoms at enrollment; delivering continuing medical education on depressive symptom recognition and treatment; and providing either care for depressive symptoms or referral to a specialist clinic. To be eligible, participants must have been 35 years of age at the time of enrollment (recruitment started on 9 March 2015 and ended on 31 May 2016), had a confirmed type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and had at least one poorly controlled cardiometabolic parameter out of the following: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥8%, systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 mmHg, or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl as documented in a medical chart review. Eligible participants were screened for depression using the Patient Health Questionniare-9 (PHQ-9) and those with scores of 10 or above, indicating moderate to severe depression, were invited to participate. Participants were excluded based on the following criteria from the chart review: currently receiving treatment for depression; alcohol or substance use disorders; cognitive disorder; bipolar, schizophrenia spectrum, or psychotic disorders; kidney failure; or cardiovascular disease including any myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or stroke within the past 12 months. There were three protocol deviations that occurred after screening but prior to randomization (participants were excluded): one participant was less than 35 years of age and two participants were on antipsychotic medications. The final study-related data collection at 24 months was completed in July 2018.

Ethics

The institutional ethics committees at each of the participating sites and the coordinating centers (Madras Diabetes Research Foundation and Emory University) approved the study. We received written informed consent from all eligible participants prior to enrollment in the study. Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the (S1 Checklist).

Measures

We assessed self-stigma using the 4-item Stigma Scale for Chronic Illness (SSCI-4; see S1 File), a brief, non-illness specific instrument resulting from iterations over the previously developed 24-item and 8-item stigma scales [1,36]. The SSCI-4 has not been routinely used in India nor are there additional psychometric studies published of the shortened scale, but it was chosen for brevity and as researchers had completed a non-Western cultural adaptation in a previous study [37]. The SSCI-4 assesses four sub-constructs: social avoidance, blame, feeling left out, and embarrassment. The SSCI-4 prompts participants to self-report stigma using a 5-item Likert scale rating. These scores are then summed for an overall self-stigma score on a scale from 4 (no self-stigma) to 20, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-stigma. The scale also includes a prompt for participants to consider their most stigmatizing condition while completing items (depression or diabetes). The 4-item scale at baseline (Cronbach’s alpha = .841) demonstrated good internal consistency.

Depressive symptom severity was assessed using the PHQ-9 while HbA1c levels were measured via blood draw and laboratory method. The PHQ-9 was used both for screening and for measuring treatment response, given the US National Committee for Quality Assurance’s guidelines defining depression treatment response as a ≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 score at follow-up and remission as a follow-up PHQ-9 score of ≤ 5 [38,39]. The PHQ-9 has previously been validated for screening depression in Chennai, India and demonstrated invariance to screening for depression among those diagnosed with or at risk for diabetes in Kerala, India [40,41]. Multiple demographic variables were collected at baseline including age, sex, monthly household income in Indian Rupees (INRs), and level of educational attainment. Whereas the PHQ-9 and HbA1c were measured at each study measurement point (baseline, six months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, and 36 months), self-stigma scores were measured yearly (baseline, 12 months, 14 months, and 36 months).

Data analysis

We conducted a longitudinal analysis comparing self-stigma over time by intervention assignment. We used a linear mixed effects model, which included a random intercept, to account for correlation within individuals over time. Although these data originated from a randomized trial, we adjusted for the following covariates in a sensitivity analysis: age, sex, monthly household income, and level of educational attainment [42].

We propose that an important part of why CoCM was effective at improving diabetes and depression outcomes was because CoCM led to improvements in self-stigma, and this change in turn predicted the patient clinical outcomes of interest. Our mediation analysis—which was guided by Baron and Kenny’s mediation testing approach—sequentially evaluated the following: 1) the effect of the predictor of interest, change in self-stigma (SSCI-4 scores) over 12 months, on the outcome of diabetes (HbA1c levels) at 12 months (total effect); 2) the effect of change in self-stigma on the mediator, depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) at 12 months; and 3) the effect of change in self-stigma on diabetes accounting for depressive symptoms (direct effect) as shown in Fig 1 below [43]. The average causal mediation effects (or indirect effect) is the total effect minus the direct effect [43]. Given the primary trial design and to account for variation in depressive symptom severity and diabetes scores at baseline, we used an ANCOVA approach to adjust for these baseline values by adding them as fixed effects accordingly instead of using change scores for both which conserved power and improved statistical precision [44]. To determine the statistical significance and generate robust confidence intervals, we used a bootstrapping method with 1000 resampled data sets as described by Preacher and Hayes [45].

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.g001 Fig 1 Path model diagram of proposed mediation analysis.

For both the mediation and longitudinal analyses, we analyzed the data for patterns of missingness and found that over 6% of individuals had missing SSCI-4 scores in a monotone pattern consistent with drop-out. As a result we assumed the data were missing at random (MAR), indicating that the covariates are good predictors of missingness, and chose to multiply impute the missing data given the availability of covariates in the data [46–48]. We used an expectation-maximation bootstrap algorithm based on a multivariate normal distribution to generate 30 imputed datasets for which the analyses were run followed by pooling of results [49]. In addition to SSCI-4 scores, the following variables were also multiply imputed due to missingness: stigmatized condition; level of educational attainment; and HbA1c levels and PHQ-9 scores at 12, 24, and 36 months. We performed all analyses using R version 4.2.2 [50] and our annotated code, which includes a list of all packages used, is available in S2 File.

Results

Four hundred and three participants consented to the trial and were randomized to receive either CoCM or enhanced standard-of-care. Participants across the CoCM and enhanced standard-of-care groups were comparable at baseline as participants on average as shown in Table 1: were female (59%), had completed secondary school (51%), had a mean monthly income between 10,001–20,000 INRs (29%), had moderate depressive symptom severity at baseline (PHQ-9 score of 13), an HbA1c level of 8.9% at baseline, and indicated diabetes as their most stigmatizing condition (84%).

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.t001 Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of study sample.

	Enhanced standard-of-care (control, n = 208)	CoCM (intervention, n = 195)	All participants (n = 403)	
Sex				
 Male	76 (37%)	89 (46%)	165 (41%)	
 Female	132 (64%)	106 (54%)	239 (59%)	
Age				
 30–39 years	14 (6.7%)	15 (7.7%)	29 (7.2%)	
 40–49 years	56 (27%)	58 (30%)	114 (28%)	
 50–59 years	82 (39%)	79 (40%)	161 (40%)	
 60 years or older	56 (27%)	43 (22%)	99 (25%)	
Level of educational attainment				
 Less than primary school	20 (9.6%)	18 (9.2%)	38 (9.4%)	
 Primary school	30 (14%)	35 (18%)	65 (16%)	
 Secondary school	108 (52%)	99 (51%)	207 (51%)	
 Post-secondary school	48 (23%)	43 (22%)	91 (23%)	
 Missing	2 (1.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.5%)	
Average monthly household income (INRs)				
 <3,000	4 (1.9%)	6 (3.1%)	10 (2.5%)	
 3,000–10,000	62 (30%)	48 (25%)	110 (27%)	
 10,001–20,000	60 (29%)	57 (29%)	117 (29%)	
 20,001–30,000	39 (19%)	36 (18%)	75 (19%)	
 30,001–40,000	12 (5.8%)	12 (6.1%)	24 (5.9%)	
 40,001–50,000	11 (5.3%)	13 (6.6%)	24 (5.9%)	
 >50,000	20 (9.6%)	23 (12%)	43 (11%)	
Self-reported stigmatized condition				
 Depression	27 (13%)	17 (9%)	44 (11%)	
 Diabetes	173 (83%)	167 (86%)	340 (84%)	
 Missing	8 (3.8%)	11 (5.6%)	19 (4.7%)	
Self-stigma score at baseline (SSCI; 4–20)				
 Median [IQR]	4 [4–5]	4 [4,4]	4 [4,4]	
 Min, Max	4, 17	4, 15	4, 17	
 Missing	5 (2.4%)	3 (1.5%)	8 (2.0%)	
Change in self-stigma score (SSCI; range: -16, +16)				
 Median [IQR]	0 [0–0]	0 [0–0]	0 [0–0]	
 Min, Max	-13, 7	-10, 5	-13, 7	
 Missing	12 (5.8%)	14 (7.1%)	26 (6.4%)	
Depression at baseline (PHQ9; range: 0–27)				
 Median [IQR]	13 [12–15]	13 [11–14]	13 [11–14]	
 Min, Max	10, 21	10, 22	10, 22	
Depression at endline (PHQ9; range: 0–27)				
 Median [IQR]	7 [3–11]	4 [3–7]	5 [3–9]	
 Min, Max	0, 22	0, 21	0, 22	
 Missing	6 (2.9%)	4 (2.1%)	10 (2.5%)	
Diabetes at baseline (A1c)				
 Median [IQR]	8.7 [7.7–10]	9.1 [7.8–11]	8.9 [7.7–11]	
 Min, Max	5.6, 15.0	5.8, 15.2	5.6, 15.2	
Diabetes at endline (A1c)				
 Median [IQR]	8.2 [7.1–9.4]	7.8 [6.7–9.3]	8.0 [6.9–9.3]	
 Min, Max	4.4, 14.3	5.3, 13.9	0, 14.3	
 Missing	6 (2.9%)	4 (2.1%)	10 (2.5%)	

Longitudinal analysis of self-stigma scores

At baseline, while holding all other covariates constant, CoCM participants had an average SSCI-4 score that was 0.32 points lower than enhanced standard of care participants (95%CI: -0.56, -0.079; P < .01). Over the 12-month follow-up period, while holding all other covariates constant, SSCI-4 scores decreased on average by 0.011 points in total for enhanced standard-of-care participants (95% CI: -0.019, -0.0033; P < .01). Among CoCM participants, while holding all other covariates constant, the mean rate of monthly change in SSCI-4 scores was 0.0087 points higher than for the enhanced standard of care group (95% CI: -0.0018, 0.019; P = .10). Thus after 12 months, a CoCM participant with mean covariate predictor values would have a predicted SSCI-4 score of 4.5 on average (a decrease of 0.028 relative to baseline) compared to 4.7 on average for the enhanced standard of care group (a decrease of 0.13 relative to baseline). See Table 2 for full results.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.t002 Table 2 Predictors of self-stigma scores longitudinally.

Predictors	Point estimates	95% CI	P-value	
Intercept	5.3	4.4, 6.3	< .001	
Collaborative Care Model	-0.32	-0.56, -0.079	< .01	
Time (12 months)	-0.011	-0.019, -0.0039	< .01	
Collaborative Care Model*Time	0.0087	-0.0018, 0.019	.10	
Age	-0.0031	-0.012, 0.0062	.52	
Sex (Female)	0.00047	-0.16, 0.16	1.0	
Monthly household income (INRs)				
 3,000–10,000	-0.46	-0.99, 0.066	.086	
 10,001–20,000	-0.56	-1.1, -0.041	< .05	
 20,001–30,000	-0.56	-1.1, -0.031	< .05	
 30,001–40,000	-0.55	-1.2, 0.055	.075	
 40,001–50,000	-0.35	-0.96, 0.25	.25	
 >50,000	-0.40	-0.96, 0.17	.17	
Level of educational attainment				
 Primary school	0.028	-0.28, 0.34	.86	
 Secondary school	-0.34	-0.61, -0.069	< .05	
 Post-secondary school	-0.43	-0.75, -0.11	< .01	
PHQ-9 scores at baseline	-0.026	-0.058, 0.0068	.12	
HbA1c levels at baseline	0.092	0.050, 0.13	< .001	

Mediation analysis

In the unadjusted analysis (see Table 3), for participants with a 1-unit drop in self-stigma scores over 12 months, HbA1c levels were on average 0.070% lower (total effect; 95% CI: 0.0032, 0.14, P < .05). However, we found no statistically significant differences when accounting for depressive symptoms as a mediator (direct effect; B = 0.064, 95% CI: -0.0043, 0.13, P = .069) and the difference in the total effect minus the direct effect (average causal mediation effect; B = 0.0062, 95% CI: -0.0023, 0.019, P = .16). Thus, this direct effect estimate confirms that a change in self-stigma did not have an effect on diabetes outcomes through depressive symptoms as a mediator.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.t003 Table 3 Unadjusted total effect, direct effect, average causal mediated effect, and proportion mediated.

Effects on diabetes after 12 months	Point estimates	95% CI	P-value1	
Average causal mediated effect	0.0062	-0.0023, 0.019	.16	
Average direct effect	0.064	-0.0043, 0.13	.069	
Total effect	0.070	0.0032, 0.14	< .05	
Proportion mediated	0.090	-0.093, 0.64	.20	
1All P-values calculated using bootstrapping.

We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to adjust for the covariates of age, sex, monthly household income, and level of educational attainment (see Table 4). In the adjusted analysis, while holding all other covariates constant, for participants with a 1-unit drop in self-stigma scores over 12 months, HbA1c levels were on average 0.071% lower (total effect; 95% CI: 0.0039, 0.14, P < .05). Like the unadjusted analysis though, we found no statistically significant differences when accounting for depressive symptoms as a mediator, (direct effect; B = 0.065, 95% CI: -0.0040, 0.13, P = .065) and the difference in the total effect minus the direct effect (average causal mediation effect; B = 0.0062, 95% CI: -0.0011, 0.019, P = .12). Thus, this estimate confirms that a change in self-stigma did not have an effect on diabetes outcomes through depressive symptoms as a mediator even after adjusting for co-variates.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.t004 Table 4 Adjusted total effect, direct effect, average causal mediated effect, and proportion mediation.

Adjusted effects on diabetes after 12 months1	Point estimates	95% CI	P-value2	
Average causal mediated effect	0.0062	-0.0011, 0.019	.12	
Average direct effect	0.065	-0.0040, 0.13	.065	
Total effect	0.071	0.0039, 0.14	< .05	
Proportion mediated	0.089	-0.044, 0.69	.20	
1Effects adjusted for age, sex, monthly household income, and level of educational attainment.

2All P-values calculated using bootstrapping.

Discussion

Compared to the enhanced standard-of-care participants, self-stigma for CoCM participants increased marginally over time, contrary to what we anticipated. However, this relationship was not statistically significant nor was the magnitude of change in self-stigma scores longitudinally–among participants who on average at baseline indicated experiencing almost no self-stigma–large enough to demonstrate any noticeable clinical change. We found that there was no total effect of change in self-stigma over 12 months on diabetes outcomes at 12 months and that depressive symptom severity at 12 months was not a mediator.

We grounded our choice of using the change in the total self-stigma score as the predictor because previous studies show that people living with common mental disorders experienced stigma from providers in India [22,23,25]. We hypothesized that CoCM would be a ‘stigma-free’ way of treating depression in a diabetes context, thereby suggesting that treated depression would mediate the relationship between change in self-stigma and diabetes outcomes. However, given our findings, an alternative analytical approach such as structural equations modeling could investigate the direction of association.

Our study results contribute to a rich and expanding literature at the intersection of stigma, common mental disorders, and diabetes in India by adding, to our knowledge, the first empirical study examining self-stigma in the context of an integrated BH intervention for people with comorbid depression and type 2 diabetes. Other interventions addressing stigma among people living with mental illness in India have typically focused on raising community awareness or knowledge about mental illness with the goal of reducing stigmatizing behaviors and none have specifically targeted healthcare professionals [23]. Armstrong and colleagues observed modest reductions in stigmatizing attitudes towards people with common mental disorders among allied community health workers serving in Bengaluru Rural District in Karnataka, following a health literacy training intervention [51]. Similarly, Mindlis and colleagues observed lower stigma levels following an educational intervention targeting six villages in rural Vadodara District in Gujarat [52]. In the Systematic Medical Appraisal Referral and Treatment Mental Health Project in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh, researchers used a public, multi-component anti-stigma campaign and observed a score improvement in stigma perceptions related to healthcare seeking [53,54]. We are unaware of any interventions aimed at reducing diabetes-related stigma in India and diabetes-related stigma interventions globally are very understudied with a recent systematic review identifying no stigma-reducing interventions in healthcare facilities for diabetes [55].These findings highlight the importance of a multi-pronged approach to reducing stigma that incorporates community-level prevention efforts and programs that focus on healthcare providers and systems [25].

Although some studies suggest people living with diabetes in India face stigma [18–21], we assumed in our proposed pathway that depression would be the most stigmatizing condition. Yet 340 participants (84%) indicated that diabetes was their most stigmatized condition. During the formative evaluation, healthcare providers indicated that patients would be reluctant to disclose their mental illness, which could underscore the high percentage of participants choosing diabetes [56]. Research staff members anecdotally observed in this study that participants may have reflexively selected diabetes given that they were at a diabetes clinic during the study procedures or because it is a more visible condition. During the process evaluation of implementing CoCM during the INDEPENDENT trial, some participants expressed that their depression was a symptom of their diabetes or that they may not have believed they had a mental disorder [57]. This may in turn explain why so few participants self-reported depression as their most stigmatizing condition.

Whereas the four questions contained in the SSCI-4–avoidance, blame, feeling left out, and embarrassment–are central to self-stigma in the context of mental illness in settings in the Global North [1,36], their transferability to settings in India warrants further investigation. In a multi-site study in South India among people with schizophrenia, Koschorke and colleagues found patients experienced internalized stigma more frequently than they experienced negative discrimination [58]. In contrast, Goyal and colleagues observed low levels of internalized stigma in a cross-sectional study of patients with psychiatric disorders in India [59]. In their qualitative thematic analysis exploring community level notions of stigma in Kerala, Raghavan and colleagues found low levels of self-stigma and while the construct of self-stigma could partially explain the lived experiences of people with mental illness, there were other locally relevant notions [60]. These included the impairment of marriage prospects as a result of mental illness; the duality of family, friends, and/or community members as supporters and/or as antagonists; and the role of the collective (family, community, or other groups) in producing and upholding stigma [60]. In India, these collective notions of stigma intersect with gender, caste, and religion (among other factors). Using the SSCI-4 as an instrument to measure self-stigma might be less relevant than other scales for measuring societal stigma. As such, our research underscores the need for culturally grounded, valid, and reliable instruments to capture multi-dimensional stigma.

Limitations

Our study has several important limitations that warrant consideration. The researchers in the primary trial were unable to collect caste data, which represents a missed opportunity to examine intersectional stigma. Due to practical constraints, we were unable to locally adapt and validate the SSCI-4 at each study site and considering the four different sites are heterogenous with respect to language, religion, and other socio-demographic factors, the scale may not have been sensitive to measuring self-stigma at the different sites. Furthermore, SSCI-4 scores were collected only at yearly intervals in this longitudinal study (unlike PHQ-9 and HbA1c scores which were collected every six months), which hindered the ability to examine predictor, mediator, and outcome scores with more temporal sensitivity. Lastly, participants with moderate to severe depressive symptom severity were recruited and in the context of the risk of regression to the mean [61,62], our analysis–which looks at depressive symptom severity at 12 months cross-sectionally–might be looking at attenuated effects.

There are three potential sources of bias in mediation analyses like this which can increase the risk of incorrect interpretations and inference. These include collider stratification bias (mediator-outcome confounding), mediator-outcome confounding affected by the predictor, and exposure-mediator interactions [63]. Collider stratification bias is particularly relevant if there are unknown or unmeasured confounders on the mediator and outcome, thus inducing a spurious effect between the mediator and predictor [63,64]. While the trial design balanced the distribution of known confounders at baseline to reduce selection bias, there remains a risk of an unmeasured confounder with respect to change in self-stigma as a predictor in this secondary mediation analysis.

Conclusion

Self-stigma scores longitudinally did not significantly differ when comparing participants who received CoCM to those who received enhanced standard-of-care. Our study findings show that the effect of change in self-stigma on diabetes outcomes are not mediated by depressive symptoms in the context of CoCM implementation at four urban diabetes clinics in India. However, given the narrow scope of our study and the local and plural notions of stigma in India, we recommend further research on the use of culturally grounded instruments to assess self-stigma. While integrated care delivery models like CoCM hold promise to improve health outcomes, our findings suggest that embedding additional and multi-level stigma-reduction interventions, including those operating at the community and healthcare systems levels, may be needed to reduce self-stigma.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist Inclusivity in global research.

(DOCX)

S1 File 4-item self-stigma scale for chronic Illness.

(DOCX)

S2 File Annotated statistical software code.

(DOCX)

This publication is adapted from a chapter from a published doctoral dissertation (Halliday SK. Collaborative Care Models for Behavioral Healthcare Services Integration: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2023). We acknowledge valuable input from Dr. Julia Dombrowski on refining the conceptual pathway model and analytical approach. We would like to give our sincerest thanks to all the participants in the study. Lastly, we are grateful to all the healthcare staff members at the study sites whose dedication and service continually inspire us.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.r001
Decision Letter 0
Singh Parvati Academic Editor
© 2024 Parvati Singh
2024
Parvati Singh
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
27 Jun 2024

PGPH-D-24-00397

A mediation analysis evaluating change in self-stigma on diabetes outcomes among people with depression in urban India: A secondary analysis from the INDEPENDENT trial of the Collaborative Care Model

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Halliday,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Parvati Singh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I don't know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The current manuscript described the relationship between changes in self-stigma and diabetes outcomes in an Indian population with diabetes and depression. Stigmatization is increasingly considered a relevant and important topic in the field of diabetes. There is a modest amount of studies on stigmatization in people with diabetes, and additional studies are needed and welcome. Cultural differences in (diabetes) stigma are known, but hardly studied and described. Therefore, this study adds to existing knowledge and study results are relevant to the field of diabetes and clinical practice.

The current study performed a mediation-analysis to examine whether depression would mediate the relationship between changes in self-stigma and HbA1c. Decreases in self-stigma scores predicted HbA1c outcomes, but were not mediated by depression scores.

The current manuscript is well written and structured and based upon relevant literature. Potential mechanisms that may explain study results are described in the discussion section.

Methodology and statistical analyses appear sound and additional information on the mediation-analyses is provided.

Some considerations are put forth, for the authors here:

Introduction:

-p3, line 57-58 ‘’Importantly, negative attitudes and beliefs associated with self-stigma can be reinforced by healthcare providers..’’ It is presented as something commonly known, but I believe there are strong cultural differences in how healthcare providers could reinforce self-stigma. Could you further explain what you mean by this, in your Indian context?

-p3, line 62-63 ‘’Visiting a specialist mental health care provider….mental disorders’.’ Could you further explain the mechanism behind or link between visiting mental healthcare providers and stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination?

-In the introduction it is not clear what type of diabetes participants were diagnosed with. Is it all type 2 diabetes? Or type 1 diabetes as well?

Methods:

-p4, line 95-100 ‘’In this pragmatic trial ….. 36 months’’. This is a very long and difficult to read sentence. Could you change it into several shorter sentences?

-p4, line 100 ‘’To be eligible, participants must have been 35 years…’’ Why 35? Could you explain why younger adults would not be included? -> see also my comment on type of diabetes (introduction), that might be related to this.

-p.7, Figure 1: Why did the authors chose to compare changes in self-stigma to HbA1c at 12 months? Why not look at the relationship between change in self-stigma and change in HbA1c and change in depression? I am no statistician, but conceptually I would think that it makes sense to compare changes in all 3 variables. Especially since there seems to be quite a change in depression scores and HbA1c from baseline to 12 months.

Results:

-p8, line 173: ‘’and indicated diabetes as their most stigmatizing condition’’ = double, please remove.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
29 Jul 2024

Attachment Submitted filename: Mediation_07.18.2024_response to reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003624.r003
Decision Letter 1
Singh Parvati Academic Editor
© 2024 Parvati Singh
2024
Parvati Singh
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
1 Aug 2024

A mediation analysis evaluating change in self-stigma on diabetes outcomes among people with depression in urban India: A secondary analysis from the INDEPENDENT trial of the Collaborative Care Model

PGPH-D-24-00397R1

Dear Dr. Halliday,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A mediation analysis evaluating change in self-stigma on diabetes outcomes among people with depression in urban India: A secondary analysis from the INDEPENDENT trial of the Collaborative Care Model' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Parvati Singh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):
==== Refs
References

1 Rüsch N , Angermeyer MC , Corrigan PW . Mental illness stigma: Concepts, consequences, and initiatives to reduce stigma. Eur Psychiatry. 2005;20 (8 ): 529–39. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.04.004 16171984
2 Thornicroft G. Shunned: Discrimination against people with mental illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
3 Corrigan P. How stigma interferes with mental health care. Am Psychol. 2004;59 (7 ): 614–25. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614 15491256
4 Liu NF , Brown AS , Folias AE , Younge MF , Guzman SJ , Close KL , et al . Stigma in People With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2017;35 (1 ): 27–34.28144043
5 World Health Organization, World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca). Integrating mental health into primary care: a global perspective. Singapore: World Health Organization; 2008.
6 Corrigan PW , Larson JE , Rüsch N . Self-stigma and the “why try” effect: impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry. 2009;8 (2 ): 75–81. doi: 10.1002/j.2051-5545.2009.tb00218.x 19516923
7 Himmelstein MS , Puhl RM . At multiple fronts: Diabetes stigma and weight stigma in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2021;38 (1 ): e14387. doi: 10.1111/dme.14387 32799378
8 Patel V , Saxena S , Lund C , Thornicroft G , Baingana F , Bolton P , et al . The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. Lancet. 2018;392 (10157 ): 1553–98. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31612-X 30314863
9 Henderson C , Noblett J , Parke H , Clement S , Caffrey A , Gale-Grant O , et al . Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1 (6 ): 467–82. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00023-6 26361202
10 Gururaj G , Varghese M , Benegal V , Rao GN , Pathak K , Singh LK , et al . National Mental Health Survey of India, 2015–16: Summary. Bengaluru : National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences; 2016.
11 Anjana RM , Unnikrishnan R , Deepa M , Pradeepa R , Tandon N , Das AK , et al . Metabolic non-communicable disease health report of India: the ICMR-INDIAB national cross-sectional study (ICMR-INDIAB-17). Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023;11 (7 ): 474–89. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(23)00119-5 37301218
12 Mendenhall E , Narayanan G , Prabhakaran D . Depression and diabetes in India: perspectives and recommendations. Diabet Med. 2012;29 (9 ): e308–e11. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03708.x 22587494
13 Venkatesh BT , Andrews T , Mayya SS , Singh MM , Parsekar SS . Perception of stigma toward mental illness in South India. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4 (3 ): 449–53. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.161352 26288791
14 Tewari A , Kallakuri S , Devarapalli S , Jha V , Patel A , Maulik PK . Process evaluation of the systematic medical appraisal, referral and treatment (SMART) mental health project in rural India. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17 (1 ): 385. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1525-6 29202773
15 Böge K , Zieger A , Mungee A , Tandon A , Fuchs LM , Schomerus G , et al . Perceived stigmatization and discrimination of people with mental illness: A survey-based study of the general population in five metropolitan cities in India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2018;60 (1 ): 24–31. doi: 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_406_17 29736059
16 Hanlon C , Luitel NP , Kathree T , Murhar V , Shrivasta S , Medhin G , et al . Challenges and Opportunities for Implementing Integrated Mental Health Care: A District Level Situation Analysis from Five Low- and Middle-Income Countries. PloS One. 2014;9 (2 ): e88437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088437 24558389
17 Dev S , Duval J , Galivanche A , Shitole T , Sawant K , Shitole S , et al . Spatializing stigma-power: Mental health impacts of spatial stigma in a legally-excluded settlement in Mumbai, India. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3 (7 ): e0001026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001026 37471352
18 Verloo H , Meenakumari M , Abraham EJ , Malarvizhi G . A qualitative study of perceptions of determinants of disease burden among young patients with type 1 diabetes and their parents in South India. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2016;9 : 169–76. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S102435 27274298
19 Gutch M , Razi SM , Kumar S , Gupta KK . Diabetes mellitus: Trends in northern India. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014;18 (5 ): 731–4. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.139219 25285295
20 Kesavadev J , Sadikot SM , Saboo B , Shrestha D , Jawad F , Azad K , et al . Challenges in Type 1 diabetes management in South East Asia: Descriptive situational assessment. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014;18 (5 ): 600–7. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.139210 25285274
21 Raghavendran S , Inbaraj LR , Norman G . Reason for refusal of insulin therapy among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in primary care clinic in Bangalore. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9 (2 ): 854–8.32318434
22 Kaur A , Kallakuri S , Mukherjee A , Wahid SS , Kohrt BA , Thornicroft G , et al . Mental health related stigma, service provision and utilization in Northern India: situational analysis. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2023;17 (1 ): 10. doi: 10.1186/s13033-023-00577-8 37106395
23 Kaur A , Kallakuri S , Kohrt BA , Heim E , Gronholm PC , Thornicroft G , et al . Systematic review of interventions to reduce mental health stigma in India. Asian J Psychiatr. 2021;55 : 102466. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102466 33249319
24 Kishore J , Gupta A , Jiloha RC , Bantman P . Myths, beliefs and perceptions about mental disorders and health-seeking behavior in Delhi, India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011;53 (4 ): 324–9. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.91906 22303041
25 Shidhaye R , Kermode M . Stigma and discrimination as a barrier to mental health service utilization in India. Int Health. 2013;5 (1 ): 6–8. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihs011 24029838
26 Dixit JV , Kulkarni RS , Badgujar SY . Diabetes Care in India: A Descriptive Study. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2021;25 (4 ): 342–7. doi: 10.4103/ijem.ijem_260_21 35136743
27 Dickinson WP . Strategies to Support the Integration of Behavioral Health and Primary Care: What Have We Learned Thus Far? J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28 (Supplement 1 ): S102. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150112 26359467
28 Mendenhall E , De Silva MJ , Hanlon C , Petersen I , Shidhaye R , Jordans M , et al . Acceptability and feasibility of using non-specialist health workers to deliver mental health care: Stakeholder perceptions from the PRIME district sites in Ethiopia, India, Nepal, South Africa, and Uganda. Soc Sci Med. 2014;118 : 33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.057 25089962
29 Lund C. Improving quality of mental health care in low-resource settings: lessons from PRIME. World Psychiatry. 2018;17 (1 ): 47–8. doi: 10.1002/wps.20489 29352544
30 Moitra M , Owens S , Hailemariam M , Wilson KS , Mensa-Kwao A , Gonese G , et al . Global Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Are Going. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2023;25 (7 ): 301–11. doi: 10.1007/s11920-023-01426-8 37256471
31 Raguram R , Raghu TM , Vounatsou P , Weiss MG . Schizophrenia and the Cultural Epidemiology of Stigma in Bangalore, India. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004;192 (11 ): 734–44. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000144692.24993.1b 15505517
32 Ell K , Katon W , Xie B , Lee P-J , Kapetanovic S , Guterman J , et al . Collaborative care management of major depression among low-income, predominantly Hispanic subjects with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2010:706–13. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1711 20097780
33 Daniel M , Maulik PK , Kallakuri S , Kaur A , Devarapalli S , Mukherjee A , et al . An integrated community and primary healthcare worker intervention to reduce stigma and improve management of common mental disorders in rural India: protocol for the SMART Mental Health programme. Trials. 2021;22 (1 ): 179. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05136-5 33653406
34 Ali MK , Chwastiak L , Poongothai S , Emmert-Fees KMF , Patel SA , Anjana RM , et al . Effect of a Collaborative Care Model on Depressive Symptoms and Glycated Hemoglobin, Blood Pressure, and Serum Cholesterol Among Patients With Depression and Diabetes in India: The INDEPENDENT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;324 (7 ): 651–62. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.11747 32809002
35 Kowalski AJ , Poongothai S , Chwastiak L , Hutcheson M , Tandon N , Khadgawat R , et al . The INtegrating DEPrEssioN and Diabetes treatmENT (INDEPENDENT) study: Design and methods to address mental healthcare gaps in India. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017;60 : 113–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2017.06.013 28642211
36 Rao D , Choi SW , Victorson D , Bode R , Peterman A , Heinemann A , et al . Measuring stigma across neurological conditions: the development of the stigma scale for chronic illness (SSCI). Qual Life Res. 2009;18 (5 ): 585–95. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9475-1 19396572
37 Marangu D , Mwaniki H , Nduku S , Maleche-Obimbo E , Jaoko W , Babigumira J , et al . Adapting a stigma scale for assessment of tuberculosis-related stigma among English/Swahili-speaking patients in an African setting. Stigma Health. 2017;2 (4 ): 307–26.
38 Kroenke K , Spitzer RL , Williams JB , Löwe B . The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010;32 (4 ): 345–59. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.03.006 20633738
39 Coley RY , Boggs JM , Beck A , Hartzler AL , Simon GE . Defining Success in Measurement-Based Care for Depression: A Comparison of Common Metrics. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71 (4 ): 312–8. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900295 31847739
40 Poongothai S , Pradeepa R , Ganesan A , Mohan V . Reliability and validity of a modified PHQ-9 item inventory (PHQ-12) as a screening instrument for assessing depression in Asian Indians (CURES-65). J Assoc Physicians India. 2009;57 : 147–52. 19582982
41 De Man J , Absetz P , Sathish T , Desloge A , Haregu T , Oldenburg B , et al . Are the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 Suitable for Use in India? A Psychometric Analysis. Front Psychol. 2021;12 . doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.676398 34054677
42 Holmberg MJ , Andersen LW . Adjustment for Baseline Characteristics in Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA. 2022;328 (21 ): 2155–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.21506 36394881
43 Baron RM , Kenny DA . The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51 (6 ): 1173–82. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173 3806354
44 van Breukelen GJP . ANCOVA Versus CHANGE From Baseline in Nonrandomized Studies: The Difference. Multivariate Behav Res. 2013;48 (6 ): 895–922. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2013.831743 26745598
45 Preacher KJ , Hayes AF . SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004;36 (4 ): 717–31. doi: 10.3758/bf03206553 15641418
46 Carpenter JR , Smuk M . Missing data: A statistical framework for practice. Biom J. 2021;63 (5 ): 915–47. doi: 10.1002/bimj.202000196 33624862
47 Schafer JL . Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, New York: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
48 Schafer JL , Graham JW . Missing Data: Our View of the State of the Art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7 (2 ): 147–77. 12090408
49 Honaker J , King G , Blackwell M . Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data. J Stat Softw. 2011;45 (7 ): 1–57.
50 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
51 Armstrong G , Kermode M , Raja S , Suja S , Chandra P , Jorm AF . A mental health training program for community health workers in India: impact on knowledge and attitudes. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2011;5 (1 ): 17. doi: 10.1186/1752-4458-5-17 21819562
52 Mindlis I , Schuetz-Mueller J , Shah S , Appasani R , Coleman A , Katz CL . Impact of Community Interventions on the Social Representation of Depression in Rural Gujarat. Psychiatr Q. 2015;86 (3 ): 419–33. doi: 10.1007/s11126-015-9342-x 25601029
53 Maulik PK , Devarapalli S , Kallakuri S , Tripathi AP , Koschorke M , Thornicroft G . Longitudinal assessment of an anti-stigma campaign related to common mental disorders in rural India. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;214 (2 ): 90–5. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.190 30681052
54 Maulik PK , Devarapalli S , Kallakuri S , Tewari A , Chilappagari S , Koschorke M , et al . Evaluation of an anti-stigma campaign related to common mental disorders in rural India: a mixed methods approach. Psychol Med. 2017;47 (3 ): 565–75. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002804 27804895
55 Nyblade L , Stockton MA , Giger K , Bond V , Ekstrand ML , Lean RM , et al . Stigma in health facilities: why it matters and how we can change it. BMC Med. 2019;17 (1 ): 25. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1256-2 30764806
56 Rao D , Lipira L , Kumar S , Mohanraj R , Poongothai S , Tandon N , et al . Input of stakeholders on reducing depressive symptoms and improving diabetes outcomes in India: Formative work for the INtegrated DEPrEssioN and Diabetes TreatmENT study. Int J Noncommun Dis. 2016;1 (2 ): 65–75.29075675
57 Johnson LCM , Thompson NJ , Ali MK , Elifson K , Chwastiak L , Mohan V , et al . A realist process evaluation of the INtegrating DEPrEssioN and Diabetes treatmENT (INDEPENDENT) randomized controlled trial in India. Am J Med Open. 2022;8 : 100015. doi: 10.1016/j.ajmo.2022.100015 36569388
58 Koschorke M , Padmavati R , Kumar S , Cohen A , Weiss HA , Chatterjee S , et al . Experiences of stigma and discrimination of people with schizophrenia in India. Soc Sci Med. 2014;123 : 149–59. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.035 25462616
59 Goyal S , Sudhir PM , Sharma MP . Illness perceptions and health beliefs in persons with common mental disorders. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;53 : 102366. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102366 32891928
60 Raghavan R , Brown B , Horne F , Kumar S , Parameswaran U , Ali AB , et al . Stigma and mental health problems in an Indian context. Perceptions of people with mental disorders in urban, rural and tribal areas of Kerala. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2022;0(0).
61 Petersen I , Fairall L , Bhana A , Kathree T , Selohilwe O , Brooke-Sumner C , et al . Integrating mental health into chronic care in South Africa: the development of a district mental healthcare plan. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;208 (Suppl 56 ): s29–39. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.153726 26447176
62 Whiteford HA , Harris MG , McKeon G , Baxter A , Pennell C , Barendregt JJ , et al . Estimating remission from untreated major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2013;43 (8 ): 1569–85. doi: 10.1017/S0033291712001717 22883473
63 Richiardi L , Bellocco R , Zugna D . Mediation analysis in epidemiology: methods, interpretation and bias. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42 (5 ): 1511–9. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt127 24019424
64 Greenland S. Quantifying Biases in Causal Models: Classical Confounding vs Collider-Stratification Bias. Epidemiology. 2003;14 (3 ): 300–6. 12859030
