%0 Journal Article
%T Content validation of Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) for primary health care workers in South Africa and Zambia ©€ a heterogeneous expert panel method
%A Anna Axelin
%A Gerhard Grobler
%A Joonas Korhonen
%A Mari Lahti
%J Global Health Action
%D 2019
%R https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1668215
%X ABSTRACT 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 (¡Ý0.8), 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
%U https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16549716.2019.1668215