Mental health literacy: a systematic review of the measurement instruments

  • Balula Chaves C
  • Sequeira C
  • Carvalho Duarte J
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Mental health literacy has become increasingly important as an empowerment tool in the field of mental health. Any intervention should always be preceded by a clear diagnosis of the situation. Objectives: To identify mental health literacy measurement instruments among adults living in a given community. Methods: An integrativereview of theliterature wasconducted using the PICOD method bysearching thefollowing scientific databases: PubMed, SciELO, LILACS, MEDLINE, EBSCO, Cochrane Library and EMBASE. The JBI critical appraisal checklist for methodological quality was used and the PRISMA guidelines were taken into account to critically assess the quality of the studies included in this work. Three articles met the inclusion criteria and were therefore included in the study. Results: Three instruments for assessing mental health literacy were identified: the MHLS, the MHKQ and the MAKS. The assessment of the methodological and psychometric quality of each of these instruments demonstrated that one of the studies showed a very good level of reliability, another study showed an acceptable level of reliability, whereas the last one showed a poor level of reliability. Conclusion: These results show that the MHLS is the best validated assessment tool for health care professionals. Given the limited number of primary studies identified, the construction of an instrument to assess the level of positive mental health literacy in the community is crucial.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Balula Chaves, C., Sequeira, C., Carvalho Duarte, J., Nelas, P., Gonçalves, A., & Santos, E. (2022). Mental health literacy: a systematic review of the measurement instruments. Revista INFAD de Psicología. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology., 3(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2021.n2.v3.2285

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free