TY - JOUR
T1 - Measurement properties of mental health literacy tools measuring help-seeking
T2 - a systematic review*
AU - Wei, Yifeng
AU - McGrath, Patrick J.
AU - Hayden, Jill
AU - Kutcher, Stan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2017/11/2
Y1 - 2017/11/2
N2 - Background: Mental health literacy is important to improve help-seeking behaviors. However, the quality of mental health help-seeking tools remains unknown. Aims: We conducted a systematic review to appraise the quality of such tools. Methods: We searched databases for English publications addressing psychometrics of help-seeking tools. We included help-seeking tools addressing mental health in general and tools on four mental disorders: anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and schizophrenia. We determined the methodological quality of studies as “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, or “indeterminate”. We ranked the level of evidence of each measurement property as “strong”, “moderate”, “limited”, “conflicting” or “unknown”. Results: We found 12 help-seeking tools in 24 studies that assessed related psychometrics. The methodological quality of included studies ranged from “poor” to “excellent” with four studies on the content validity, structural validity or internal consistency demonstrating “excellent” quality. Three tools demonstrated overall strong evidence (content or structural validity); eight tools demonstrated moderate evidence (internal consistency, structural or construct validity); and eight tools demonstrated limited evidence (reliability, construct validity or internal consistency). Conclusions: We recommend the application of tools with strong or moderate evidence for their psychometric properties. Future research may focus on the generalizability of the tools across diverse settings.
AB - Background: Mental health literacy is important to improve help-seeking behaviors. However, the quality of mental health help-seeking tools remains unknown. Aims: We conducted a systematic review to appraise the quality of such tools. Methods: We searched databases for English publications addressing psychometrics of help-seeking tools. We included help-seeking tools addressing mental health in general and tools on four mental disorders: anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and schizophrenia. We determined the methodological quality of studies as “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, or “indeterminate”. We ranked the level of evidence of each measurement property as “strong”, “moderate”, “limited”, “conflicting” or “unknown”. Results: We found 12 help-seeking tools in 24 studies that assessed related psychometrics. The methodological quality of included studies ranged from “poor” to “excellent” with four studies on the content validity, structural validity or internal consistency demonstrating “excellent” quality. Three tools demonstrated overall strong evidence (content or structural validity); eight tools demonstrated moderate evidence (internal consistency, structural or construct validity); and eight tools demonstrated limited evidence (reliability, construct validity or internal consistency). Conclusions: We recommend the application of tools with strong or moderate evidence for their psychometric properties. Future research may focus on the generalizability of the tools across diverse settings.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032575988&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032575988&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09638237.2016.1276532
DO - 10.1080/09638237.2016.1276532
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28355928
AN - SCOPUS:85032575988
SN - 0963-8237
VL - 26
SP - 543
EP - 555
JO - Journal of Mental Health
JF - Journal of Mental Health
IS - 6
ER -