| dc.description.abstract | Background:
Optimising mental health literacy (MHL) at the individual and population level can be an effective mental health improvement and prevention tool. However, concepts of MHL are largely based on evidence from high-income countries. Little is known about the manifestation and role of MHL in countries where collectivist health and social cultures are dominant.
Aim:
This study aimed to examine the MHL of Indonesian children and young people (CYP) with experience of common mental health problems and their parents.
Methods:
Semi-structured interviews with 40 participants (19 CYP aged 11–15 with experience of common mental health problems and 21 parents) from three areas of Java, Indonesia. Data were analysed using framework analysis, informed by Jorm's 1997 Mental Health Literacy Framework.
Results:
Parents and CYP demonstrated relatively low levels of MHL defined from a conventional perspective. Religiosity and spirituality were salient in participants' accounts, particularly parents, as were narratives about personal responsibility. These beliefs appeared to contribute to a high level of self-blame for mental illness, self-reliance for symptom management, the foregrounding of support from spiritual/traditional healers and a reduced propensity to access professional help. CYP were heavily reliant on family support, but parents often felt they were not best placed to communicate with their children about mental health. Providing trusted, technology-based sources of mental health information were advocated by CYP.
Conclusion:
Robust efforts are needed to improve MHL in low- and middle-income countries drawing on culturally appropriate approaches to reduce stigma and optimise timely, effective help-seeking for CYP. Enhancing parental and family level literacy may be efficacious, especially when combined with mechanisms to facilitate open communication, as may the development of standalone interventions directly developed to reach younger generations. Future research may usefully establish the comparative efficacy and acceptability of these different approaches. | en_US |
