A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
Content validation of Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) for primary health care workers in South Africa and Zambia a heterogeneous expert panel method
Tekijät: Korhonen J., Axelin A., Grobler G., Lahti M.
Kustantaja: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Julkaisuvuosi: 2019
Journal: Global Health Action
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: GLOBAL HEALTH ACTION
Lehden akronyymi: GLOBAL HEALTH ACTION
Artikkelin numero: ARTN 1668215
Vuosikerta: 12
Numero: 1
Sivujen määrä: 12
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1668215
Verkko-osoite: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16549716.2019.1668215
Rinnakkaistallenteen osoite: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/44104338
Background: The lack of public knowledge and the burden caused by mental-health issues' effect on developing and implementing adequate mental-health care for young and adolescent in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Primary health care could be the key in facing the challenge, but it suffers from insufficient resources and poor mental health literacy. This study's aim was to adapt the content validity of the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) developed by O'Connor & Casey (2015) with researchers and primary health-care workers in low- and middle-income contexts in South Africa (SA) and in Zambia.
Objectives: The study population comprised two expert panels (N = 21); Clinical Experts (CE) (n = 10) from Lusaka, Zambia and Professional Research Experts (PE) (n = 11) from the MEGA project management team were recruited to the study. Methods: MHLS was validated in a South African and a Zambian context using a heterogeneous expert-panel method. Participants were asked to rate the 35 MHLS items on a 4-point scale with 1 as not relevant and 4 as very relevant After the rating, all 35 MHLS items were carefully discussed by the expert panel and evaluated according their relevance. The data were analyzed using an item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and narrative and thematic analyses.
Results: All 35 items ranked by the PREs met the cutoff criteria (>= 0.8), and ten (n = 10) items were seen as relevant by CE when calculating I-CVIs. Based on the results of ratings and discussion, a group of sixteen (n = 16) of all items (n = 35) were retained as original without reviewing. A total of nineteen (n = 19) items were reviewed.
Conclusion: This study found the MHLS to have sufficient validity in LMICs' context but also recognized a gap between professional researchers' and clinical workers' knowledge and attitudes related to mental health.
Ladattava julkaisu This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
