Dataset Information

Applicability and cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale in patients with chronic heart failure.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The mental well-being of patients with chronic heart failure is likely to influence their health-related quality of life and decrease the utilization of public health resources. This study assessed the mental well-being of patients with chronic heart failure and evaluated the reliability and validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional survey from July 2016 to July 2017 among 191 patients with chronic heart failure, and examined psychometric properties of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, such as internal consistency, reliability, test-retest reliability, and factorial validity of the Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. RESULTS:One-dimensional construct validity was demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis. The psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale were satisfactory in our sample of patients with chronic heart failure. The internal consistency reliability was .948 and the test-retest reliability .925. The item-total correlations ranged from .405 to .872. There was a strong correlation (r = .79) between the Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale and the five-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index. The Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale appears acceptable for use in patients with chronic heart failure, and we were able to verify its reliability and validity with our sample. CONCLUSIONS:The Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale is a reliable quantitative tool for evaluating mental well-being in patients with chronic heart failure in clinical settings, and this has important implications for overall assessments of mental well-being in patients with chronic heart failure.

SUBMITTER: Dong A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6440095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to validate the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) among English speaking adults representing two of the minority ethnic groups living in the UK, self-identified as Chinese or Pakistani by background, in a mixed methods study.MethodsQuantitative data were collected in two cities in the West Midlands, UK. Item response, dimensionality, internal consistency, and construct validity of the WEMWBS were assessed in Chinese and Pakistani groups separately, using data from both cities combined.Qualitative data were collected in the first city in eight focus groups of different ages recruited by the community workers. Three mixed sex Chinese and five single sex Pakistani groups discussed ease of completion and comprehension of items, together with overall reactions to the scale and underlying concept.Results of quantitative and qualitative analysis were examined for commonalities and differences.ResultsItem completion and item total correlations were satisfactory in both groups. In the Chinese data, Exploratory Factor Analysis showed a single factor with loadings ranging from 0.60 to 0.82 for all 14 items. In the Pakistani data, three factors reached statistical significance; however, a substantial drop in eigenvalues between the first and second factors and the limited variance explained by the second and third factors supported a one-factor model. All items loaded on this factor from 0.51 to 0.83.In the Chinese and Pakistani data respectively, Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 (0.89 - 0.94) and 0.91 (0.88 - 0.94); Spearman's correlation with GHQ-12 was - 0.63 (-0.73 to -0.49) and -0.55 (-0.70 to -0.36), and with the WHO-5 0.62 (0.46-0.75) and 0.64 (0.50 to 0.76).Qualitative analysis revealed good comprehension and ease of completion of almost all items. Some culturally determined differences in understanding of mental well-being, which varied both between and within communities, emerged.ConclusionsThe WEMWBS was well received by members of both Pakistani and Chinese communities. It showed high levels of consistency and reliability compared with accepted criteria. Data were sufficiently strong to recommend the WEMWBS for use in general population surveys.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing international interest in the concept of mental well-being and its contribution to all aspects of human life. Demand for instruments to monitor mental well-being at a population level and evaluate mental health promotion initiatives is growing. This article describes the development and validation of a new scale, comprised only of positively worded items relating to different aspects of positive mental health: the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS).MethodsWEMWBS was developed by an expert panel drawing on current academic literature, qualitative research with focus groups, and psychometric testing of an existing scale. It was validated on a student and representative population sample. Content validity was assessed by reviewing the frequency of complete responses and the distribution of responses to each item. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the scale measured a single construct. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was explored in terms of correlations between WEMWBS and other scales and by testing whether the scale discriminated between population groups in line with pre-specified hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was assessed at one week using intra-class correlation coefficients. Susceptibility to bias was measured using the Balanced Inventory of Desired Responding.ResultsWEMWBS showed good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the single factor hypothesis. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.89 (student sample) and 0.91 (population sample) suggests some item redundancy in the scale. WEMWBS showed high correlations with other mental health and well-being scales and lower correlations with scales measuring overall health. Its distribution was near normal and the scale did not show ceiling effects in a population sample. It discriminated between population groups in a way that is largely consistent with the results of other population surveys. Test-retest reliability at one week was high (0.83). Social desirability bias was lower or similar to that of other comparable scales.ConclusionWEMWBS is a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive aspects of mental health. As a short and psychometrically robust scale, with no ceiling effects in a population sample, it offers promise as a tool for monitoring mental well-being at a population level. Whilst WEMWBS should appeal to those evaluating mental health promotion initiatives, it is important that the scale's sensitivity to change is established before it is recommended in this context.

Project description:BackgroundThe Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) was developed to meet demand for instruments to measure mental well-being. It comprises 14 positively phrased Likert-style items and fulfils classic criteria for scale development. We report here the internal construct validity of WEMWBS from the perspective of the Rasch measurement model.MethodsThe model was applied to data collected from 779 respondents in Wave 12 (Autumn 2006) of the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Respondents were aged 16-74 (average 41.9) yrs.ResultsInitial fit to model expectations was poor. The items 'I've been feeling good about myself', 'I've been interested in new things' and 'I've been feeling cheerful' all showed significant misfit to model expectations, and were deleted. This led to a marginal improvement in fit to the model. After further analysis, more items were deleted and a strict unidimensional seven item scale (the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS)) was resolved. Many items deleted because of misfit with model expectations showed considerable bias for gender. Two retained items also demonstrated bias for gender but, at the scale level, cancelled out. One further retained item 'I've been feeling optimistic about the future' showed bias for age. The correlation between the 14 item and 7 item versions was 0.954.Given fit to the Rasch model, and strict unidimensionality, SWEMWBS provides an interval scale estimate of mental well-being.ConclusionA short 7 item version of WEMWBS was found to satisfy the strict unidimensionality expectations of the Rasch model, and be largely free of bias. This scale, SWEMWBS, provides a raw score-interval scale transformation for use in parametric procedures. In terms of face validity, SWEMWBS presents a more restricted view of mental well-being than the 14 item WEMWBS, with most items representing aspects of psychological and eudemonic well-being, and few covering hedonic well-being or affect. However, robust measurement properties combined with brevity make SWEMWBS preferable to WEMWBS at present for monitoring mental well-being in populations. Where face validity is an issue there remain arguments for continuing to collect data on the full 14 item WEMWBS.

Project description:IntroductionThe Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) is a commonly used scale of mental wellbeing focusing entirely on the positive aspect of mental health. It has been widely used in a broad range of clinical and research settings, including to evaluate if interventions, programmes or pilots improve wellbeing. We aimed to systematically review all interventions that used WEMWBS and evaluate which interventions are the most effective at improving wellbeing.MethodsEligible populations included children and adults, with no health or age restrictions. Any intervention study was eligible if the wellbeing outcome was measured using the 7 or 14-item WEMWBS scale assessed both pre- and post-intervention. We identified eligible intervention studies using three approaches: a database search (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyschInfo and Web of Science from January 2007 to present), grey literature search, and by issuing a call for evidence. Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean differences in the intervention group were used to summarise intervention effects on WEMWBS score.ResultsWe identified 223 interventions across 209 studies, with a total of 53,834 participants across all studies. Five main themes of interventions were synthesised: psychological (n = 80); social (n = 54); arts, culture and environment (n = 29); physical health promotion (n = 18); and other (n = 28). Psychological interventions based on resilience, wellbeing or self-management techniques had the strongest effect on wellbeing. A broad range of other interventions were effective at improving mental wellbeing, including other psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoeducation and mindfulness. Medium to strong effects were also seen for person-centred support/advice (social), arts-based, parenting (social) and social prescribing interventions. However, a major limitation of the evidence was that only 75 (36%) of studies included a control group.ConclusionsWEMWBS has been widely used to assess wellbeing across a diverse range of interventions, settings and samples. Despite substantial heterogeneity in individual intervention design, delivery and groups targeted, results indicate that a broad range of intervention types can successfully improve wellbeing. Methodological changes, such as greater use of control groups in intervention evaluation, can help future researchers and policy makers further understand what works for mental wellbeing.

Dataset Information

Applicability and cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale in patients with chronic heart failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets