Stephenie R. Chaudoir

Bio: Stephenie R. Chaudoir is an academic researcher from College of the Holy Cross. The author has contributed to research in topics: Stigma (botany) & Social stigma. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 35 publications receiving 4287 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephenie R. Chaudoir include University of Connecticut & Bradley University.

From Conceptualizing to Measuring HIV Stigma: A Review of HIV Stigma Mechanism Measures

Abstract: Recent analyses suggest that lack of clarity in the conceptualization and measurement of HIV stigma at an individual level is a significant barrier to HIV prevention and treatment efforts. In order to address this concern, we articulate a new framework designed to aid in clarifying the conceptualization and measurement of HIV stigma among individuals. The HIV Stigma Framework explores how the stigma of HIV elicits a series of stigma mechanisms, which in turn lead to deleterious outcomes for HIV uninfected and infected people. We then apply this framework to review measures developed to gauge the effect of HIV stigma since the beginning of the epidemic. Finally, we emphasize the utility of using three questions to guide future HIV stigma research: who is affected by, how are they affected by, and what are the outcomes of HIV stigma?

Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: the impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health.

Abstract: The current research provides a framework for understanding how concealable stigmatized identities impact people's psychological well-being and health. The authors hypothesize that increased anticipated stigma, greater centrality of the stigmatized identity to the self, increased salience of the identity, and possession of a stigma that is more strongly culturally devalued all predict heightened psychological distress. In Study 1, the hypotheses were supported with a sample of 300 participants who possessed 13 different concealable stigmatized identities. Analyses comparing people with an associative stigma to those with a personal stigma showed that people with an associative stigma report less distress and that this difference is fully mediated by decreased anticipated stigma, centrality, and salience. Study 2 sought to replicate the findings of Study 1 with a sample of 235 participants possessing concealable stigmatized identities and to extend the model to predicting health outcomes. Structural equation modeling showed that anticipated stigma and cultural stigma were directly related to self-reported health outcomes. Discussion centers on understanding the implications of intraindividual processes (anticipated stigma, identity centrality, and identity salience) and an external process (cultural devaluation of stigmatized identities) for mental and physical health among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity.

Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures

Abstract: Two of the current methodological barriers to implementation science efforts are the lack of agreement regarding constructs hypothesized to affect implementation success and identifiable measures of these constructs. In order to address these gaps, the main goals of this paper were to identify a multi-level framework that captures the predominant factors that impact implementation outcomes, conduct a systematic review of available measures assessing constructs subsumed within these primary factors, and determine the criterion validity of these measures in the search articles. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles reporting the use or development of measures designed to assess constructs that predict the implementation of evidence-based health innovations. Articles published through 12 August 2012 were identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the journal Implementation Science. We then utilized a modified five-factor framework in order to code whether each measure contained items that assess constructs representing structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level factors. Further, we coded the criterion validity of each measure within the search articles obtained. Our review identified 62 measures. Results indicate that organization, provider, and innovation-level constructs have the greatest number of measures available for use, whereas structural and patient-level constructs have the least. Additionally, relatively few measures demonstrated criterion validity, or reliable association with an implementation outcome (e.g., fidelity). In light of these findings, our discussion centers on strategies that researchers can utilize in order to identify, adapt, and improve extant measures for use in their own implementation research. In total, our literature review and resulting measures compendium increases the capacity of researchers to conceptualize and measure implementation-related constructs in their ongoing and future research.

The disclosure processes model: understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity.

Abstract: Disclosure is a critical aspect of the experience of people who live with concealable stigmatized identities. This article presents the Disclosure Processes Model (DPM)— a framework that examines when and why interpersonal disclosure may be beneficial. The DPM suggests that antecedent goals representing approach and avoidance motivational systems moderate the effect of disclosure on numerous individual, dyadic, and social contextual outcomes and that these effects are mediated by three distinct processes: (1) alleviation of inhibition, (2) social support, and (3) changes in social information. Ultimately, the DPM provides a framework that advances disclosure theory and identifies strategies that can assist disclosers in maximizing the likelihood that disclosure will benefit well-being.

HIV Stigma Mechanisms and Well-Being Among PLWH: A Test of the HIV Stigma Framework

Abstract: The current work evaluates the HIV Stigma Framework in a sample of 95 people living with HIV recruited from an inner-city clinic in the Bronx, NY. To determine the contributions of each HIV stigma mechanism (internalized, enacted, and anticipated) on indicators of health and well-being, we conducted an interviewer-delivered survey and abstracted data from medical records. Results suggest that internalized stigma associates significantly with indicators of affective (i.e., helplessness regarding, acceptance of, and perceived benefits of HIV) and behavioral (i.e., days in medical care gaps and ARV non-adherence) health and well-being. Enacted and anticipated stigma associate with indicators of physical health and well-being (i.e., CD4 count less than 200 and chronic illness comorbidity respectively). By differentiating between HIV stigma mechanisms, researchers may gain a more nuanced understanding of how HIV stigma impacts health and well-being and better inform targeted interventions to improve specific outcomes among people living with HIV.

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Abstract: Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.

The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review.

Abstract: In 2 meta-analyses, we examined the relationship between perceived discrimination and psychological well-being and tested a number of moderators of that relationship. In Meta-Analysis 1 (328 independent effect sizes, N = 144,246), we examined correlational data measuring both perceived discrimination and psychological well-being (e.g., self-esteem, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, life satisfaction). Using a random-effects model, the mean weighted effect size was significantly negative, indicating harm (r = -.23). Effect sizes were larger for disadvantaged groups (r = -.24) compared to advantaged groups (r = -.10), larger for children compared to adults, larger for perceptions of personal discrimination compared to group discrimination, and weaker for racism and sexism compared to other stigmas. The negative relationship was significant across different operationalizations of well-being but was somewhat weaker for positive outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, positive affect) than for negative outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, negative affect). Importantly, the effect size was significantly negative even in longitudinal studies that controlled for prior levels of well-being (r = -.15). In Meta-Analysis 2 (54 independent effect sizes, N = 2,640), we examined experimental data from studies manipulating perceptions of discrimination and measuring well-being. We found that the effect of discrimination on well-being was significantly negative for studies that manipulated general perceptions of discrimination (d = -.25), but effects did not differ from 0 when attributions to discrimination for a specific negative event were compared to personal attributions (d = .06). Overall, results support the idea that the pervasiveness of perceived discrimination is fundamental to its harmful effects on psychological well-being.