The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychiatry
Sec. Public Mental Health
Volume 15 - 2024 |
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1435608
Evaluating the psychometric properties of three WHO instruments to assess knowledge about human rights, attitudes towards persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, and practices related to substitute-decision making and coercion in mental health. Authors
Provisionally accepted- 1 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, New York, United States
- 2 Other, Geneva, Switzerland
- 3 WHO Country Office (Ghana), Accra, Ghana
- 4 New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI), New York, New York, United States
- 5 Ministry of Health (Ghana), Accra, Ghana
- 6 WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Neurosciences and Substance Abuse, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
- 7 Other, New York, United States
- 8 Other, Accra, Ghana
- 9 World Health Organization - Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo
- 10 Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy
Background: Instruments to assess the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes towards 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. Aim: 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. Methods: 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, 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 towards their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals' practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion. Conclusions: 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.
Keywords: Mental Health, Human Rights, psychometric properties, knowledge, attitudes, Practices, validity, Reliability
Received: 20 May 2024; Accepted: 01 Jul 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Moro, Gyimah, Susser, Ansong, Kane, Amissah, Gureje, Osei, Norcini Pala, Taylor, Drew, Kofie, Baingana, Ohene, Addico, Fatawu, Atzeni, D'Oca, Carta and Funk. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Maria Francesca Moro, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, NY 10032, New York, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.