preprint · medRxiv
Abstract This study addresses a key challenge in HIV care the lack of a validated screening tool for psychosocial vulnerability. Although the 12-item Brief Berger HIV Stigma Scale is widely used, no clear threshold exists to identify individuals at high risk for mental health problems. Our research aimed to establish a practical, data-driven cut-off score for the scale in a Nigerian context and to explore which dimensions of stigma are most linked to psychosocial vulnerability. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 285 PLWH at three tertiary centres (May–August 2024). Psychosocial vulnerability was defined as moderate-to-severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥10) or anxiety (GAD-7 ≥10). The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis with the Youden Index identified the optimal cut-off; multivariable logistic regression examined independent associations of stigma subscales with vulnerability. Among 285 participants (mean age 47.1±11.17 years, 72.6% female), 44.9% met vulnerability criteria. The Berger Scale demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC = 0.717, 95% CI 0.658–0.777). A cut-off of ≥30 yielded high sensitivity (87.5%) and strong negative predictive value (82.8%). Internal validation confirmed stability (cross-validated AUC 0.703, bootstrap AUC 0.701). Decision curve analysis showed positive net benefit over “screen-none” up to threshold probability 0.45, with peak benefit at 0.30. In multivariable analysis, public attitude concerns were the strongest predictor (adjusted OR 1.68, p<0.001), while disclosure concerns—despite near-universal prevalence (96.1%)—showed no independent association. The ≥30 cut-off provides a practical, sensitive rule-out tool for identifying PLWH needing psychosocial assessment in resource-limited settings. External validation is essential before widespread adoption . Public attitude concerns outweighing internalised stigma highlights the need for culturally informed interventions addressing societal stigma alongside mental health support.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1101/2025.09.15.25335818
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.