It is well-established that stigma adversely affects mental and behavioral health outcomes among members of marginalized groups. Thus, reducing stigma and its negative consequences is an important public health priority. Despite the centrality of stigma as a source of stress for minoritized groups, and the fact that stigma has motivated the adaptation of several recent mental- and behavioral-health interventions, the field of psychological science has rarely examined whether stigmatizing experiences or contexts moderate the efficacy of these interventions. This gap is important because it undermines our ability to deliver treatments to individuals for whom they will be most beneficial, and to the social contexts where these treatments are most needed. In this conceptual paper, Lab Director Mark Hatzenbuehler and his colleague, John Pachankis, argued that stigma may be an important, but largely under-recognized, source of treatment effect heterogeneity in mental- and behavioral-health interventions. To support this hypothesis, they reviewed recent evidence from randomized controlled trials and spatial meta-analyses suggesting that stigma may predict not only who responds more favorably to these health interventions, but also the social contexts that are more likely to undermine intervention effects. This paper also highlighted several important areas for future research that are needed to advance this burgeoning literature on stigma and intervention efficacy.

You can read more about this study in Current Directions in Psychological Science.