Study design, study population and sample size
A cross-sectional study was conducted on a representative sample of young adults aged 20–35 years [2]. The sample size calculation from the entire RwVMHBC project has been previously described [2]. In all, 917 households were included, with 440 men and 477 women and two refusals to participate. To find households for inclusion in the survey, a multi-stage random sampling was used. First, of 3512 existing villages in the Southern Province of Rwanda, 35 villages were randomly selected. Secondly, households were selected proportionate to the total number of households in each village and the study participants to be interviewed were randomly selected among eligible people in each household i.e., men and women aged between 20 and 35 years. Two sub-samples from the entire RwVMHBC project sample (n = 917) were used in the current study. The first sub-sample consisted of 247 subjects, 78 men and 169 women, who reported current depression and/or suicidality. This sub-sample was used in all analyses with exception of one analysis exploring help-seeking behaviours where we considered only those who felt the need to seek care (n = 150). The second sub-sample consisted of men and women without any of the mental disorders investigated (n = 502), this population was used only for comparison purposes in the final analysis to explore the pattern of self-efficacy for seeking mental health care items in the sub-two populations.
Data collection procedures
The data collection was carried out in the Southern Province in 2011–2012, by 13 experienced clinical psychologists from the School of Public Health, University of Rwanda. A questionnaire was developed, piloted after its translation into Kinyarwanda, and revised accordingly. Face to face interviews were performed.
Measurements
Help-seeking behaviour in the current study was defined as any action of energetically seeking help from the health care services or from trusted people in the community and includes understanding, guidance, treatment and general support when feeling in trouble or encountering stressful circumstances [21].
The perceived need for mental health care was investigated by asking the question: “have you ever been so emotionally troubled that you felt a need to seek help?” with a yes or no option. If the participant answered yes, the follow up question was whether they received help from health care services and/or from any other source. The following question asked where they went to seek help within the health care sector: “to a health centre or district hospital (nurse, medical doctor etc.)”, “to the district hospital to see mental health professional”, “to a mental health clinic or hospital” and “to a private clinic”. A summary measure for seeking help in any of these health care units was constructed and dichotomized into seeking mental care from a health care unit, as opposed to not doing so. One question asked about other sources of support/help with the options: “wife/partner”, “parent”, “other relative”, “friend”, “teacher”, “religious person”, “community health worker” and “traditional healer”. A summary measure of support from other sources was created and dichotomized as any experience of support or help from the trusted people in the community cited above versus no such experience.
The help-seeking behaviours, the need for mental health care and the barriers to care items were constructed based on previous studies [5, 22–25].
The barriers to mental health care were measured by asking the reasons of not seeking mental health care and these barriers were grouped into structural (five items), individual (ten items) and stigma-related (five items) barriers to care. For example, the structural barriers was explored by asking if someone did not seek care because of the following reasons: “it was too far to get there”, “there was no transport available”, “I could not afford to pay the transport costs”, “I could not pay the fee at the health care centre”, “I have no health insurance”. A summary measure for each type of the barriers (structural, individual and stigma related) was constructed and finally dichotomised into exposure to any of the barrier item, as opposed to no exposure.
To assess the study population’s confidence level to master various barriers to mental health care, their self-efficacy in seeking mental health care was investigated. A recently constructed scale called “Self-efficacy scale for seeking mental health care” with its two sub-scales constructed by Moore et al. [26] was used. The construct of this scale builds on Bandura’s recommendations on how to build self-efficacy scales [27]. Bandura’s theoretical basis was that items should correctly mirror the construct of self-efficacy and that a good self-efficacy scale should accurately reflect the domain of functioning that is being assessed. Therefore, the constructed self-efficacy scale for seeking mental health was adapted based on a review of previous literature on access to care [23, 28, 29] and mental health literacy [30], particularly knowledge, insight and ability to follow through with treatment recommendations as well as psychological factors, including stigma [31]. The constructed scale was linked first to confidence in knowing how to access mental health care and how to communicate with health care staff, forming the self-efficacy knowledge sub-scale (SE-Knowledge). The second sub-scale on how to successfully cope with social and interpersonal consequences of seeking care, formed the self-efficacy coping sub-scale (SE-Coping) [26].
To measure the respondents’ confidence and coping ability when seeking mental health care, each participant was asked to rank the items between one and ten. A summary measure of low (i.e., 1–3), medium (i.e., 4–6) and high (i.e., 7–10) confidence was then constructed; only the low and high categories are presented in table.
To assess mental health status, including current depression (i.e., major depressive episode over the past 2 weeks) and suicidality, the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview version 5.0.0, developed from the DSM-IV criteria, was used. Validation studies show that the MINI has similar validity and reliability properties as does the World Health Organization CIDI (Composite International Diagnostic Interview for ICD-10) instrument [32]. The major depressive episode section of the MINI starts with two screening questions corresponding to the main criteria of the disorder and ends with a diagnostic conclusion indicating whether the criterion was met or not. For suicidality, consisting of six questions related to symptoms, diagnosis was reached when at least one was met [2].
The socio-demographic and psycho-social variables were tested as independent risk factors for structural, individual and stigma-related barriers. Age was categorized as a three category variable (20–24, 25–29, and 30–35 years). Marital status was divided into married/cohabiting and divorced/widowed and single. The educational level was described as a three group variable (secondary school/university, complete primary/vocational training and incomplete primary). As a proxy for socio-economic status of households, the available assets in the household (radio, television set, refrigerator, bicycle, motorcycle, car, mobile phone and computer) were merged and dichotomized into having at least one of the items versus having none of the items.
Statistical analysis
Differences between men and women in terms of socio-demographic factors, help-seeking behaviours and perceived barriers to health care services were assessed by the Pearson’s Chi square test or the Fisher’s exact test for independence for all categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to estimate only predictors of structural and individual barriers but no such analysis was performed for stigma related barriers due to the few cases. To assess the internal consistency of the constructed self-efficacy scale for seeking mental health care, the Cronbach’s α was computed for each subscale, SE-Knowledge and SE-Coping and for the total scale. Cronbach’s α coefficients showed a good internal consistency for the self-efficacy total scale for seeking care for a mental disorder (0.901 for men and 0.865 for women), with its two subscales on SE-Knowledge (α = 0.877 and 0.836 for men and women respectively) and SE-Coping (α = 0.841 and 0.836, for men and women respectively). IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 was used for all statistical analyses.
We used the Mann–Whitney U test to obtain p values comparing estimates for men and women in relation to self-efficacy Knowledge and Coping items, for the population with current depression and/or suicidality and for the population without any mental disorder respectively.
Ethical statement
The study was authorized by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (No. 1043/2011/10/NISR) and approved by the Rwanda National Ethics Committee (Review Approval Notice No. 165/RNEC/2011). Complete anonymity and confidentiality were assured, and only one interview per household was done. Participation in the study was voluntary, and a written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study.