Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): group and individual level analysis

Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Scott Weich, John Powell, Sarah Stewart-Brown, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Scott Weich, John Powell, Sarah Stewart-Brown

Abstract

Background: Mental well-being now features prominently in UK and international health policy. However, progress has been hampered by lack of valid measures that are responsive to change. The objective of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) at both the individual and group level.

Methods: Secondary analysis of twelve different interventional studies undertaken in different populations using WEMWBS as an outcome measure. Standardised response mean (SRM), probability of change statistic (P(^)) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were used to evaluate whether WEMWBS detected statistically important changes at the group and individual level, respectively.

Results: Mean change in WEMWBS score ranged from -0.6 to 10.6. SRM ranged from -0.10 (95% CI: -0.35, 0.15) to 1.35 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.64). In 9/12 studies the lower limit of the 95% CI for P(^) was greater than 0.5, denoting responsiveness. SEM ranged from 2.4 to 3.1 units, and at the threshold 2.77 SEM, WEMWBS detected important improvement in at least 12.8% to 45.7% of participants (lower limit of 95% CI>5.0%).

Conclusions: WEMWBS is responsive to changes occurring in a wide range of mental health interventions undertaken in different populations. It offers a secure base for research and development in this rapidly evolving field. Further research using external criteria of change is warranted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Forest Plot with Standardised response mean (SRM) for included studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest Plot with Probability of detecting change for included studies.

References

    1. Levy SM, Lee J, Bagley C, Lippman M. Survival hazards analysis in first recurrent breast cancer patients: seven-year follow-up. Psychosom Med. 1988;50:520–528.
    1. Devins GM, Mann J, Mandin H, Paul LC. Psychosocial predictors of survival in end-stage renal disease. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1990;178:127–133. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199002000-00008.
    1. Huppert FA, Whittington JE. Symptoms of psychological distress predict 7-year mortality. Psychol Med. 1995;25:1073–1086. doi: 10.1017/S0033291700037569.
    1. Snowdon D. Aging with grace: What the nun study teaches us about leading longer, healthier, and more meaningful lives. Bantam, New York; 2002.
    1. Chida Y, Steptoe A. Positive psychological well-being and mortality: a quantitative review of prospective observational studies. Psychosom Med. 2008;70:741–756. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31818105ba.
    1. Ford J, Spallek M, Dobson A. Self-rated health and a healthy lifestyle are the most important predictors of survival in elderly women. Age Ageing. 2008;37:194. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afm171.
    1. WHO. Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice. 2005. Available at: .
    1. DoH. No health without mental health: a cross-government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. 2011. Available at: .
    1. Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi JP. Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. 2009. Available at: .
    1. Huppert F, Whittington J. Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being: Implications for quality of life assessment. Br J Health Psychol. 2003;8:107–122. doi: 10.1348/135910703762879246.
    1. Keyes CL. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:539–548.
    1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:141–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
    1. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.
    1. Lloyd K, Devine P. Psychometric properties of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in Northern Ireland. J Ment Health. 2012;21:257–263. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2012.670883.
    1. López MA, Gabilondo A, Codony M, García-Forero C, Vilagut G, Castellví P, Ferrer M, Alonso J. Adaptation into Spanish of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and preliminary validation in a student sample. Qual Life Res. 2012. pp. 1–6.
    1. Gremigni P, Stewart-Brown SL. Measuring mental well-being: Italian validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) Giornale Italiano di Psicologia. 2011. pp. 485–508.
    1. Clarke A, Friede T, Putz R, Ashdown J, Martin S, Blake A, Adi Y, Parkinson J, Flynn P, Platt S, Stewart-Brown S. Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): validated for teenage school students in England and Scotland. A mixed methods assessment. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:487. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-487.
    1. Stewart-Brown S. In: Mental Well-being: International Contributions to the Study of Positive Mental Health. Keyes CL, editor. Springer; 2011. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): performance in different cultural and geographical groups.
    1. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–468. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204–1217. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00407-3.
    1. Boyles AL, Harris SF, Rooney AA, Thayer KA. Forest Plot Viewer: a new graphing tool. Epidemiology. 2011;22:746–747. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318225ba48.
    1. Pigott TD. A review of methods for missing data. Educ Res Eval. 2001;7:353–383. doi: 10.1076/edre.7.4.353.8937.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882.
    1. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632–642. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008.
    1. Zou GY. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1545–1552. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0027-4.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–362. doi: 10.1023/A:1023499322593.
    1. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-23.
    1. Daly LE. Confidence limits made easy: interval estimation using a substitution method. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:783–790. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009523.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359–365. discussion 366–358.
    1. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12–19.
    1. Christensen L, Mendoza JL. A method of assessing change in a single subject: An alteration of the RC index. Behav Ther. 1986;17:305–308. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(86)80060-0.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–873. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.
    1. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28:542–547. doi: 10.1002/art.1780280513.
    1. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.
    1. Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL. The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:815–822. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x.
    1. Hevey D, McGee HM, Horgan J. Responsiveness of health-related quality of life outcome measures in cardiac rehabilitation: comparison of cardiac rehabilitation outcome measures. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:1175–1180.
    1. Boyer P, Montgomery S, Lepola U, Germain JM, Brisard C, Ganguly R, Padmanabhan SK, Tourian KA. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fixed-dose desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day for major depressive disorder in a placebo-controlled trial. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;23:243–253. doi: 10.1097/YIC.0b013e32830cebed.
    1. Christensen KS, Bech P, Fink P. Measuring Mental Health by Questionnaires in Primary Care - Unidimensionality. Responsiveness and Compliance. Eur Psychiatr Rev. 2010;3:8–12.
    1. Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006;15:1229–1236. doi: 10.1002/hec.1125.
    1. Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:52–60. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00537-1.
    1. Huppert FA, Johnson DM. A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools: The importance of practice for an impact on well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice. 2010;5:264–274.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir