Background Research on Mental Health Literacy (MHL) has expanded across cultural minority groups, yet little is known about the relationships between socioeconomic status (SES), MHL, and mental health (MH) service utilization. This study investigates the relationship between MHL, SES, and MH service utilization among Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCIs). Methods A cross-sectional survey ( n = 372, M age 36.88 ± 13.52 years, 68% female), based on the Australian National Survey of Mental Health Literacy and Stigma, examined associations between SES indicators (education and income), MHL components, and MH service utilization. Compared to the PCI population, the sample included more women, older people, and more people with higher education. Results Higher SES, as assessed by both indicators, was significantly associated with greater mental health literacy (MHL) at the bivariate level, particularly in terms of accurate disorder identification, knowledge of appropriate interventions, and lower levels of stigma. Hierarchical logistic regression revealed that education and income were significantly associated with MH service use (OR = 3.62, 95% CI: 1.38–9.45; OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.13–0.99, respectively), and first-aid MHL knowledge also contributed to explaining variance (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75–0.99). Other MHL indices, such as stigma and knowledge of potential helpers, were not significantly associated with service utilization. Conclusions The findings underscore the interplay between structural inequalities and cultural beliefs in shaping MH knowledge and behavior, and highlight the need for culturally sensitive, socioeconomically accessible interventions to improve MH outcomes in minority populations. The authors advocate for integrating MHL education into secondary educational settings and implementing policy reforms that address both material disparities and cultural barriers to care. These insights contribute to the global discourse on MH disparities in indigenous and marginalized communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ras et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: