Back

Stigmatization of Indigenous patients in healthcare: Co-development and validation of a measurement tool

Tremblay, M.-C.; Iradukunda, E.; Cassivi, C.; Breault, P.; Briere, E.; Collerette, C.; Fletcher, C.; Renaud, J.-S.; Beaulieu, M.

2026-06-09 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.06.06.26355055 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction Indigenous peoples in Canada face persistent health inequities rooted in colonialism, systemic racism, discrimination and social exclusion, all of which operate with particular intensity within healthcare institutions. Despite a growing qualitative literature documenting the discrimination and stigmatisation of Indigenous people by healthcare professionals, no validated instrument existed in the Canadian context to measure the stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors of clinicians toward this population. Aim This study aimed to co-develop and validate an instrument using clinical case vignettes designed to capture the affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of stigmatization of indigenous peoples. Method Following Boateng et al.'s three-phase scale development approach, a multidisciplinary team including Indigenous patient partners, researchers, clinicians, and measurement experts generated 244 items across three paired clinical vignettes addressing type 2 diabetes, chronic back pain, and depressive disorder. Each vignette was developed in two versions, one featuring an Indigenous patient (test) and one featuring a non-Indigenous patient (control), distinguished solely by name and origin. Content validity was assessed by an expert committee using a Content Validity Index. The instrument was subsequently administered to a sample of nurses and physicians from two canadian health institutions using a twelve-arm randomization design. Analyses were carried to assess the internal structure of the instrument, convergent and concurrent validity as well as internal consistency. Results Our results show that the instrument developed has good psychometric qualities, particularly in terms of internal consistency, concurrent validity and factor structure, which reflects the theoretical structure assumed. Concurrent validity of the tool with the M-PATAS scale demonstrated weak to moderate significant correlations. Developed through a participatory process centering Indigenous expertise and lived experience, this instrument constitutes a significant methodological advance in the study of racialized stigmatization in Canadian healthcare.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 2%
35.6%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
14.9%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.6%
4
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.6%
5
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
6
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
7
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
8
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
9
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
10
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
12
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
13
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
14
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
15
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
16
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
17
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.7%
20
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%