Evaluating the psychometric properties of three WHO instruments to assess knowledge about human rights, attitudes toward persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, and practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion in mental health.

Journal: Frontiers in psychiatry

Volume: 15

Issue: 

Year of Publication: 

Affiliated Institutions:  Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. World Health Organization (WHO) Country Office for Ghana, Accra, Ghana. Mental Health Authority, Ghana Ministry of Health, Accra, Ghana. World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Neurosciences and Substance Abuse, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Department of Community Health Sciences, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate, Brooklyn, NY, United States. MindFreedom Ghana, Accra, Ghana. Policy, Law and Human Rights, Department of Mental Health and Substance Use, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Mental Health Society of Ghana, Accra, Ghana. Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo. Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

Abstract summary 

Instruments to assess the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes toward their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals' practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion are either missing or lack evaluation of their validity and reliability.The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and reliability of three instruments developed to fill this gap in the literature, the World Health Organization's QualityRights (WHO QR) Knowledge questionnaire, the WHO QR Attitudes questionnaire, and the WHO QR Practices questionnaire.A sample of participants was recruited and completed an online survey. Content validity and face validity were assessed for the three questionnaires. Based on the characteristics of the questionnaires, different approaches were used to assess their construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis, known group validity, and convergent and divergent validity). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and test re-test reliability using Pearson's and Spearman's r coefficients.The analyses conducted indicate that the three questionnaires are valid and reliable instruments to evaluate the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes toward their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals' practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion.This finding lends support to the use of these instruments both within mental health services and in the general population for a better understanding of current knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to a human rights-based approach to mental health in mental health services and the community.

Authors & Co-authors:  Moro Maria Francesca MF Gyimah Leveana L Susser Ezra E Ansong Joana J Kane Jeremy J Amissah Caroline C Gureje Oye O Osei Akwasi A Norcini Pala Andrea A Taylor Dan D Drew Nathalie N Kofie Humphrey H Baingana Florence F Ohene Sally-Ann SA Addico Nii Lartey NL Fatawu Abdul A Atzeni Michela M D'Oca Silvia S Carta Mauro Giovanni MG Funk Michelle M

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations :  Kleinman A. Global mental health: a failure of humanity. Lancet. (2009) 374:603–4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61510-5
Authors :  20
Identifiers
Doi : 1435608
SSN : 1664-0640
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Other Terms
attitudes;human rights;knowledge;mental health;practices;psychometric properties;reliability;validity
Study Design
Study Approach
Country of Study
Publication Country
Switzerland