Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

CONSULT-PSYCHIATR scale shows promise for assessing barriers to psychiatric consultation among workersNew Tool Measures Why Workers Avoid Psychiatric Care

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that the CONSULT-PSYCHIATR scale shows promise for identifying patient barriers to psychiatric consultation.

The study evaluated the CONSULT-PSYCHIATR scale, a brief ten-item instrument designed to identify reasons why workers might be reluctant to attend psychiatric consultations. The researchers assessed the tool's content validity, internal structure, and reliability through various statistical analyses.

Findings indicated that most items showed high representativeness for content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a one-factor structure with high loadings. Additionally, reliability estimates were reported as high across both main and sensitivity analyses, suggesting the tool is internally consistent.

The authors noted limitations including the need to test the instrument in different populations and settings, as well as the need for additional sources of validity evidence. Because this was an instrumental validation rather than a clinical trial, the results should be interpreted with caution regarding broader application.

Clinically, the CONSULT-PSYCHIATR may serve as a useful tool for identifying specific barriers to mental health care in workplace settings. However, its generalizability remains limited until it is validated across different cultural and geographic contexts.

Researchers tested a new 10-item tool called the CONSULT-PSYCHIATR. This scale was designed to measure the specific reasons why people might be reluctant to go to a psychiatrist. The study focused on a group of 300 workers in Peru to see if the tool could accurately capture these feelings.

The results showed that the tool is reliable and consistent. It successfully identified a single main factor related to the barriers people face when seeking mental health care. Because it is short and easy to use, it could help healthcare providers understand what stops patients from getting the help they need.

While this study confirms the tool works well in its current setting, the researchers noted that more testing is needed in different locations and with different types of people. This is a validation study of a measurement tool, not a clinical trial for a treatment or medication.

What this means for you:
The CONSULT-PSYCHIATR scale is a reliable 10-item tool to identify why workers may avoid mental health care.

Common questions

What is the CONSULT-PSYCHIATR scale?

The CONSULT-PSYCHIATR is a brief 10-item tool used to measure the reasons why people might be reluctant to attend psychiatric consultations. The study confirmed that it has good internal consistency and content validity, making it a reliable way to identify barriers to mental health care.

Who was involved in this study?

The study included 300 workers located in Peru. This group was used to test the tool's ability to measure why people might hesitate to seek professional psychiatric help. Because it is a validation study, it focuses on the accuracy of the survey tool itself.

Is this a new treatment for mental health?

No, this is not a medical treatment or a clinical trial. It is an instrumental study that validates a 10-item scale. The goal is to help providers understand patient concerns rather than providing a direct medical intervention.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
IntroductionWorkers may be reluctant to attend psychiatric consultation because of stigma, interpersonal concerns, and practical barriers. In Peru, brief instruments specifically designed to assess these reasons in working populations are limited. This study examined the content validity, internal structure, and internal consistency of a Peruvian scale assessing reasons why workers are reluctant to attend consultations with a psychiatrist.MethodsAn instrumental study was conducted in Peru. Item development was informed by a literature review and expert input. An initial 10-item version was evaluated by 20 experts for relevance, representativeness, and clarity using Aiken’s V. After a pilot test, the questionnaire was administered to 3001 workers from several Peruvian departments using non-random sampling. Item distribution was examined using descriptive statistics, skewness, excess kurtosis, floor and ceiling effects, and constant-response patterns. The sample was randomly divided into exploratory and confirmatory subsamples. A polychoric exploratory factor analysis was conducted in the exploratory subsample, followed by confirmatory analyses in the independent confirmatory subsample. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal alpha, and ordinal omega total.ResultsMost Aiken’s V coefficients were 0.70 or higher, with only one lower value for the representativeness of item 9. The 10-item version showed adequate item distributions, although 46.95% of participants provided constant responses across all items, prompting sensitivity analyses. Exploratory factor analysis supported a one-factor structure, explaining 80.96% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.8425 to 0.9365. This structure remained stable after excluding constant-response patterns. In the confirmatory subsample, the 10-item one-factor model showed high standardized loadings and favorable CFI, TLI, and SRMR values, although RMSEA was less favorable and was interpreted jointly with the remaining indices. Reliability estimates were high in both the main and sensitivity analyses.DiscussionThe CONSULT-PSYCHIATR is a brief 10-item instrument with evidence of content validity, internal structure, and internal consistency for assessing perceived reasons why workers in Peru may be reluctant to attend psychiatric consultation. Although the findings are encouraging, further studies are needed to examine its performance in other populations and settings and to assess additional sources of validity evidence.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.