Measurement properties of mental health literacy tools measuring help-seeking: a systematic review*

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

• mental health literacy
• help-seeking tools
• psychometrics
• quality of measurement properties
• systematic review

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ms. Catherine Morgan for her help with data collection and analysis, and the health librarian, Ms. Robin Parker, who helped with designing the search strategies of this review.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.