The social and community opportunities profile social inclusion measure: Structural equivalence and differential item functioning in community mental health residents in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom

Abstract

Introduction: China’s future major health problem will be the management of chronic diseases – of which mental health is a major one. An instrument is needed to measure mental health inclusion outcomes for mental health services in Hong Kong and mainland China as they strive to promote a more inclusive society for their citizens and particular disadvantaged groups. Aim: To report on the analysis of structural equivalence and item differentiation in two mentally unhealthy and one healthy sample in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Method: The mental health sample in Hong Kong was made up of non-governmental organisation (NGO) referrals meeting the selection/exclusion criteria (being well enough to be interviewed, having a formal psychiatric diagnosis and living in the community). A similar sample in the United Kingdom meeting the same selection criteria was obtained from a community mental health organisation, equivalent to the NGOs in Hong Kong. Exploratory factor analysis and logistic regression were conducted. Results: The single-variable, self-rated ‘overall social inclusion’ differs significantly between all of the samples, in the way we would expect from previous research, with the healthy population feeling more included than the serious mental illness (SMI) groups. In the exploratory factor analysis, the first two factors explain between a third and half of the variance, and the single variable which enters into all the analyses in the first factor is having friends to visit the home. All the regression models were significant; however, in Hong Kong sample, only one-fifth of the total variance is explained. Conclusion: The structural findings imply that the social and community opportunities profile–Chinese version (SCOPE-C) gives similar results when applied to another culture. As only one-fifth of the variance of ‘overall inclusion’ was explained in the Hong Kong sample, it may be that the instrument needs to be refined using different or additional items within the structural domains of inclusion.