Mixed method study evaluates mental health literacy in women, suggesting enhanced tools may improve awareness.
Background and Aims Gender is recognized as a critical determinant of mental health. Women's reproductive years are a period when they are particularly vulnerable to mental health issues. Enhancing mental health literacy can help reduce the burden of these disorders. This study aimed to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a Mental Health Literacy Scale specifically designed for women of reproductive age. Methods Women of reproductive ages mental health literacy scale (WoRA‐MHL) was developed through qualitative studies, a literature review, and systematic item generation. The scale underwent content and face validity assessments, followed by item analysis. Structural validity was examined by employing preliminary factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability measures included Cronbach's alpha, split‐half testing, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and metrics of absolute reliability. Results The final WoRA‐MHL instrument consists of 30 items categorized under four themes: “Accessing and Obtaining Mental Health Information,” “Understanding Mental Health Information,” “Maintaining Mental Health,” and “Adapting to the Challenges of Women's Lives.” Together, these four themes accounted for 54.42% of the total variance. CFA validated a satisfactory model fit for the scale. The reliability assessment indicated a Cronbach's alpha of 0.889, an overall ICC of 0.966, and a standard error of measurement of 4.68. Conclusion The study offered initial support for the construct validity and reliability of the WoRA‐MHL as a tool for assessing mental health literacy (MHL) in reproductive‐age women. It aims to identify gaps in knowledge, skills, and behaviors related to mental health and mental disorders, as well as to assist in planning promotional programs and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Future research is needed to further validate this measure and conduct multicultural comparisons of MHL across diverse populations worldwide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Safaralinezhad et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: