Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32357881›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2020

A systematic literature review of existing conceptualisation and measurement of mental health literacy in adolescent research: current challenges and inconsistencies.

Rosie Mansfield, Praveetha Patalay, Neil Humphrey

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rosie MansfieldInstitute of Education, University of Manchester, Ellen Wilkinson Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK. rosie.mansfield@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8703-5606
Praveetha PatalayInstitute of Education and Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Neil HumphreyInstitute of Education, University of Manchester, Ellen Wilkinson Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
University of Manchester · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department for Education, England EOR/SBU/2017/015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith an increased political interest in school-based mental health education, the dominant understanding and measurement of mental health literacy (MHL) in adolescent research should be critically appraised. This systematic literature review aimed to investigate the conceptualisation and measurement of MHL in adolescent research and the extent of methodological homogeneity in the field for meta-analyses.

methodsDatabases (PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ASSIA and ERIC) and grey literature were searched (1997-2017). Included articles used the term 'mental health literacy' and presented self-report data for at least one MHL domain with an adolescent sample (10-19 years). Definitions, methodological and contextual data were extracted and synthesised.

resultsNinety-one articles were identified. There was evidence of conceptual confusion, methodological inconsistency and a lack of measures developed and psychometrically tested with adolescents. The most commonly assessed domains were mental illness stigma and help-seeking beliefs; however, frequency of assessment varied by definition usage and study design. Recognition and knowledge of mental illnesses were assessed more frequently than help-seeking knowledge. A mental-ill health approach continues to dominate the field, with few articles assessing knowledge of mental health promotion.

conclusionsMHL research with adolescent samples is increasing. Results suggest that a better understanding of what MHL means for this population is needed in order to develop reliable, valid and feasible adolescent measures, and explore mechanisms for change in improving adolescent mental health. We recommend a move away from 'mental disorder literacy' and towards critical 'mental health literacy'. Future MHL research should apply integrated, culturally sensitive models of health literacy that account for life stage and acknowledge the interaction between individuals' ability and social and contextual demands.

Indexed as

Adolescent BehaviorAdolescentAdolescent HealthChildConcept FormationFemaleHealth EducationHealth LiteracyHealth PromotionHumansMaleMental HealthPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportYoung AdultAdolescentConceptualisationMeasurementMental health literacySystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID32357881
PMCPMC7195735
OpenAlexW3022049395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.