ArticleScientific reports2026
Revisiting the knowledge concept of mental health literacy and its relationships with stigma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring foot-based SNARC effect by hand posture: insights from embodied cognition.Cognitive processing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health knowledge is a core component of school-based Mental Health Literacy (MHL) programs, yet it is often operationalized as a broad multifaceted construct that may obscure distinctions among different types of knowledge. This study re-examined the internal structure and measurement properties of the 30-item knowledge scale from the Mental Health & High School Curriculum Guide using data from approximately 440 Grade 9 students and 497 Grade 8 students in western Canada. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), item response theory (IRT), and regression analyses were conducted. Results indicated that the original scale was not well represented as a single unidimensional construct. Rather than dismissing the measure, theoretical analysis suggested that the items reflect three components: general knowledge, brain knowledge, and disorder-specific knowledge. The general knowledge and brain knowledge subscales demonstrated more coherent psychometric properties and stable measurement across cohorts, time points, and genders, whereas disorder-specific knowledge showed limited support for a unified latent structure. IRT analyses indicated that the general knowledge subscale was most precise at moderate to higher knowledge levels, whereas the brain knowledge subscale was most precise at low to moderate levels. Multiple regression analyses showed that general knowledge was significantly associated with stigma, whereas brain knowledge was not. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing among different types of mental health knowledge in MHL research and school-based interventions, suggesting that practitioners may select the original scale, the general knowledge scale, or a combination of the general and brain knowledge scales depending on their purposes.
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.