Moro Maria Francesca, Gyimah Leveana, Susser Ezra, Ansong Joana, Kane Jeremy, Amissah Caroline, Gureje Oye, Osei Akwasi, Norcini Pala Andrea, Taylor Dan, Drew Nathalie, Kofie Humphrey, Baingana Florence, Ohene Sally-Ann, Addico Nii Lartey, Fatawu Abdul, Atzeni Michela, D'Oca Silvia, Carta Mauro Giovanni, Funk Michelle
Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Policy, Law and Human Rights, Department of Mental Health and Substance Use, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Front Psychiatry. 2024 Sep 6;15:1435608. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1435608. eCollection 2024.
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.
用于评估对精神健康状况者和心理社会残疾者权利的了解、对其作为权利持有者角色的态度,以及精神卫生专业人员在替代决策和强制方面相关做法的工具要么缺失,要么缺乏对其有效性和可靠性的评估。
本研究的目的是评估为填补文献中的这一空白而开发的三种工具的有效性和可靠性,即世界卫生组织的“质量权利”(WHO QR)知识问卷、WHO QR态度问卷和WHO QR做法问卷。
招募了一组参与者并完成了一项在线调查。对这三份问卷进行了内容效度和表面效度评估。根据问卷的特点,采用不同方法评估其结构效度(验证性因素分析、已知群体效度以及聚合效度和区分效度)。使用克朗巴哈系数评估内部一致性,并使用皮尔逊和斯皮尔曼相关系数评估重测信度。
所进行的分析表明,这三份问卷是评估对精神健康状况者和心理社会残疾者权利的了解、对其作为权利持有者角色的态度,以及精神卫生专业人员在替代决策和强制方面相关做法的有效且可靠的工具。
这一发现支持在精神卫生服务机构内部以及普通人群中使用这些工具,以便更好地了解与精神卫生服务和社区中基于人权的精神卫生方法相关的现有知识、态度和做法。