The research team conducted the study between March and October 2025, using semi-structured one-to-one interviews to draw out candid accounts from people positioned at every level of the mental health ecosystem. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, a technique that deliberately seeks out individuals with direct, varied knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation rather than sampling randomly from a broad population. Every interview was audio-recorded and transcribed, then subjected to qualitative content analysis with the assistance of MAXQDA, a widely used software platform for coding and organizing textual data. The authors structured their reporting according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist, a transparency measure designed to make qualitative findings easier to evaluate and reproduce in spirit if not in statistical terms. The study received ethics approval from Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and all participants provided written informed consent.

What emerged from the analysis was a three-tier architecture of intervention, echoing the socio-ecological model that public health researchers often use to situate individual behavior within nested layers of social context. At the broadest tier, the national and structural level, the participants identified three avenues for change: promoting the role of trustees and government organizations, improving community knowledge, attitudes and awareness, and strengthening the role of mass media. At the middle tier, the social and institutional level, they pointed to gaining support from influential figures or groups, strengthening health service delivery structures, and proper human resource management. At the most intimate tier, the individual and interpersonal level, two subcategories dominated: empowering people living with mental health disorders themselves and empowering their families.

The emphasis on national-level actors reflects a hard truth about stigma: it is rarely just a matter of private prejudice. When government institutions, insurers and public agencies model discriminatory treatment, they encode stigma into the administrative fabric of society, a phenomenon researchers call structural stigma. The study’s participants, including health policymakers, suggested that when trustees and government organizations take visible ownership of mental health inclusion, the signal radiates downward through society, legitimizing acceptance in workplaces, schools and neighborhoods. Improving community knowledge and attitudes complements this top-down signal by targeting the misconceptions that fuel everyday avoidance, such as unfounded beliefs that people with mental disorders are dangerous or incapable of meaningful work.

The mass media earned its own subcategory for good reason. News coverage, film and television can either amplify fear or normalize help-seeking, and in a media environment where sensationalized reporting of psychiatric illness is common, the stakes are high. Participants in the study framed media engagement not as an optional garnish to anti-stigma work but as a core channel through which millions of people form their implicit understanding of mental illness. Responsible portrayal, expert commentary and campaigns that present people with mental health disorders as neighbors, colleagues and family members rather than as cautionary tales were all implicated in the push to reshape public perception at scale.

At the social and institutional level, the study highlighted the persuasive power of influential figures and groups. Religious leaders, community elders and other trusted voices can reach audiences that clinical campaigns never touch, and their endorsement of mental health care can dissolve the shame that keeps people away from clinics. The participants also emphasized strengthening health service delivery structures, a reminder that stigma is experienced in waiting rooms as much as in streets. If facilities are under-resourced, fragmented or staffed by personnel who hold stigmatizing attitudes, each encounter reinforces the message that people with mental disorders are second-class users of the health system. Proper human resource management, from training to accountability, was identified as a practical lever for ensuring that the workforce treats patients with dignity.

The individual and interpersonal findings carry perhaps the most emotional weight. Empowerment of people living with mental health disorders means more than encouragement; it means building the skills, confidence and legal protections that allow individuals to advocate for themselves, pursue employment and participate in community life without hiding their diagnoses. Empowerment of families recognizes that in Iran, as in much of the world, relatives are often the primary caregivers and the first line of defense against isolation. Families who understand a disorder, know how to navigate services and feel supported rather than blamed are far better positioned to shield their loved ones from the corrosive effects of discrimination.

The methodological design of the study deserves attention because it shapes what the framework can claim. Qualitative content analysis does not measure the prevalence of stigma or test the effectiveness of any specific program; instead, it maps the terrain of expert and lived experience, revealing where stakeholders believe the levers of change lie. By triangulating perspectives across nine distinct participant categories, the researchers reduced the risk that their framework simply reflects the blind spots of any single group. A psychiatrist may see stigma differently than a mother managing her son’s schizophrenia or a bureaucrat allocating mental health budgets, and the study’s strength lies in forcing those views into a single, negotiable picture.

The findings also resonate with global evidence. The World Health Organization has repeatedly warned that mental health systems in the Eastern Mediterranean Region remain chronically underfunded and that stigma is one of the principal barriers to closing the treatment gap. Studies across multiple countries have shown that anti-stigma interventions work best when they combine contact-based approaches, in which people meet and interact with those living with mental illness, with education and policy reform. The Iranian framework aligns with this pattern by insisting that no single level of intervention is sufficient: a brilliantly designed national campaign will falter if clinics remain hostile, and an empathetic nurse cannot undo the damage of discriminatory legislation.

The study’s authors conclude that meaningful progress will require collaboration among governmental and non-governmental organizations, people living with mental health disorders and their families. That call to partnership is more than diplomatic language; it is an acknowledgment that stigma is produced and reproduced across all three levels simultaneously and must therefore be attacked on all three at once. The researchers were supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences, though the funder played no role in the design, analysis or decision to publish, and the authors report no competing interests. For the millions of Iranians living with conditions such as depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder, the study offers something that has often been in short supply: a concrete, stakeholder-validated map of the road from exclusion to inclusion, drawn by the very people who must walk it.

Subject of Research: Stigma toward people living with mental health disorders in Iran and interventions to reduce it

Article Title: Stigma toward people living with mental health disorders in Iran: a qualitative study to inform stigma reduction interventions

Article References: Hajizadeh, A., Rajabi, F., Amini, H., Hashemi, S. Z., & Kakemam, E. (2026). Stigma toward people living with mental health disorders in Iran: a qualitative study to inform stigma reduction interventions. BMC Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-026-08677-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08677-8

Keywords: mental health, stigma, Iran, qualitative research, psychiatry, social discrimination, health policy, BMC Psychiatry, anti-stigma interventions, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, mass media, family empowerment