Table 3 Summary of key study characteristics
From: Structural stigma and its impact on healthcare for borderline personality disorder: a scoping review
| Â | N | % |
|---|---|---|
Participants | 17,406 | 100 |
Study methodologies | ||
 Quantitative studies | 18 | 32.0 |
 Qualitative studies | 28 | 49.0 |
 Mixed methods study | 2 | 3.5 |
 Reviews/meta-synthesis | 7 | 12.0 |
 Clinical practice guidelines | 2 | 3.5 |
Countries | ||
 Australia | 16 | 28.0 |
 Israel | 3 | 5.0 |
 United Kingdom | 17 | 30.0 |
 Sweden | 2 | 3.3 |
 United States of America | 11 | 19.0 |
 Canada | 2 | 3.3 |
 New Zealand | 1 | 2.0 |
 Ireland | 2 | 3.3 |
 Scotland | 1 | 2.0 |
 Taiwan | 1 | 2.0 |
 Unknown | 1 | 2.0 |
Population groupsa | ||
 Health practitioners | 37 | 65.0 |
 Consumers with BPD | 15 | 25.0 |
 Carers/families | 6 | 10.0 |
Healthcare settings | ||
 Mental health services | 19 | 31.0 |
 Emergency departments | 13 | 21.0 |
 General hospital and health services | 14 | 24.0 |
 Community-based services | 14 | 24.0 |
Health professions | ||
Medicine/psychiatry | 18 | 30.0 |
 Nursing | 26 | 42.0 |
 Allied health | 17 | 28.0 |