The Mental Health Literacy of Ncaa College Coaches: Implications for Mental Health Education

Background and Purpose: National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) college athletes in the United States (U.S.) are at risk for diminished mental health, and stigma may be a barrier to these athletes seeking professional mental health care. Coaches can create a team environment that prioritizes athlete mental health and de-stigmatizes help-seeking; however, this requires coaches to have appropriate mental health knowledge, operationalized as mental health literacy (MHL). MHL interventions may include athletic departments employing social workers to increase awareness of mental health diagnoses and to provide educational resources to stakeholders, including coaches, in an effort to de-stigmatize mental health. Unfortunately, there is limited research in the U.S. that explores NCAA coaches’ MHL that can ground such educational interventions in evidence-based practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore three different constructs of MHL of NCAA coaches across Divisions I, II, and III. The study was guided by three research questions:

1. What are NCAA coaches’ levels of MHL knowledge, beliefs, and understanding of resources?
2. Are there demographic differences within MHL domains among NCAA college coaches?
3. Does MHL among college coaches differ by NCAA Division (i.e., I, II, or III)?

Methods: The Multicomponent Mental Health Literacy Scale (MMHLS), which measures MHL within three domains—knowledge, beliefs, and resources—was administered to 545 NCAA coaches across Divisions I, II, and III. Levels of MHL among coaches were observed, and statistical tests were run to assess MHL dimensions by gender, ethnicity, education, whether the respondent had sought treatment for their mental health, and whether there were differences in the MHL of coaches based on NCAA division.

Results: MHL scores in the knowledge-oriented and beliefs-oriented domains were high for all coaches, while scores in the resources-oriented domain were low. There were mean differences within MHL beliefs, with female coaches (t=3.43; p<.001) and white coaches (t=2.03, p<.05) scoring higher than their respective counterparts, and scores in MHL beliefs had significant mean differences among coaches across Divisions I, II, and III (f=3.58, p<.05), with DII having the most stigmatized beliefs.

Conclusions: Results suggest that it may be mental health stigma that is driving the differences in MHL rates in sport populations, and that overall MHL education for NCAA coaches may not be effective in increasing knowledge about mental health resources. Furthermore, certain groups of coaches have more stigmatized mental health beliefs, despite having foundational mental health knowledge. MHL trainings for NCAA coaches in the U.S. need to explicitly target these knowledge gaps. This can include more attention to resource-oriented knowledge, investment in MHL training at the DII level, and MHL trainings specifically for male coaches and coaches with historically marginalized identities. As social workers are commonly hired in NCAA athletic departments to provide case management, clinical, and educational services, they are well-positioned to implement such evidence-based MHL trainings for coaches.