ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Translation, cultural adaptation, and content validity evaluation of a mental health literacy instrument in Bolivia.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health literacy (MHL)-individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about mental health-plays a key role in promoting public mental health. Accurate MHL measurement helps identify knowledge gaps, reduce stigma, and encourage help-seeking. However, culturally validated instruments remain scarce in low- and middle-income countries, including Bolivia. Objectives: This study aimed to carry out the translation cultural adaptation and content validity assessment of an instrument designed to comprehensively assess the construct of mental health literacy in the Bolivian urban context. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used, including forward and backward translation, following best practices for cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcomes. Three instruments were adapted: the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS), O'Connor, 2015; the Perceived Devaluation and Discrimination Scale (PDDS), Link, 1987; and the Mental Health Problem Recognition module (MHPR), Burrone, 2021. Content validation assessment was conducted with eight experts who rated each item's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility using a 4-point Likert scale. Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), modified kappa, Scale-level Content Validity Index (S-CVI), and readability statistics were calculated. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with the same experts to refine items and assess conceptual clarity. A pilot test with 10 participants evaluated comprehension and usability. Results: The I-CVI scores from the quantitative phase indicated that the majority of items were rated as "good" or "excellent" in terms of relevance (97.14%), comprehensiveness (83.02%), and comprehensibility (94.34%). The obtained S-CVI/UA scores fell well below the recommended threshold for relevance (0.32), comprehensiveness (0.25), and comprehensibility (0.32), indicating a lack of universal agreement among experts. The S-CVI/Ave scores indicated moderate consensus among experts for relevance (0.88), comprehensiveness (0.84), and comprehensibility (0.87). Items that did not achieve optimal I-CVI and modified kappa scores were examined during the qualitative phase. Experts identified minor issues related to terminology and phrasing that could affect clarity. Following minor revisions, all items were retained. Conclusion: This study presents a culturally adapted, content-validated instrument for assessing MHL in Bolivia. The final version, consisting of 53 items, demonstrates strong content validity and provides a solid foundation for further psychometric evaluation and broader application in Spanish-speaking and Latin American contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.