Responsiveness of the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS): evaluation a clinical sample

Neha Shah, Mizaya Cader, William P Andrews, Dilini Wijesekera, Sarah L Stewart-Brown, Neha Shah, Mizaya Cader, William P Andrews, Dilini Wijesekera, Sarah L Stewart-Brown

Abstract

Background: SWEMWBS is a popular measure of mental wellbeing, shown to be valid in clinical populations. Responsiveness to change has not yet been formally assessed.

Methods: Analysis of data from a clinical sample of 172 clients undergoing up to 4 sessions of cognitive hypnotherapy. Cohen's D effect size (ES), Standardised response mean (SRM), probability of change statistic (P^) were used to evaluate whether SWEMWBS detected statistically important changes at the group level. Cohen's D effect size (ES) and Standard error of measurement (SEM) and were used to evaluate whether SWEMWBS detected statistically important changes at the individual level.

Results: Mean (SD) SWEMWBS scores increased from baseline to therapy 4 from 19.28 (3.921) to 23.32 (4.873). At group level, using Cohen's D effect size, improvement ranges from ES = 0.20-1.41 and using SRM, ranged from 0.30-0.88, increasing with number of therapy sessions. (P^) ranged from 0.65-0.8. At individual level, use of Cohens D ES > 0.5 indicated statistically important improvement in 29.9-86.1% cf. 20.1-80.6% using a standard of 2.77 SEM (2.87 points). The lower threshold of 1 SEM (1.03 points) indicated statistically important improvement in 43.0-81.0%.

Conclusion: SWEMWBS is responsive to change at individual and group level. At individual level a change of between 1 and 3 points meets thresholds for statisticially important change, depending on standard used. Anchor based studies are necessary to confirm that such change represents minimally important change from the perspective of study participants.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval has been granted from University of Warwick Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Sub-Committee, approval number REGO-2017-2066. Participating clients have all signed consent for their anonymised data to be used for research purposes.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Sarah-Stewart Brown is the developer of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.

William Andrews is the developer of Pragmatic Tracker software used to capture data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Faculty of Public Health and Mental Health Foundation. Better Mental Health for All: A Public Health Approach to Mental Health Improvement. 2016.
    1. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. J Happiness Stud. 2008;9(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1.
    1. Stewart-Brown S. In: Population level: Wellbeing in the general population. Slade M, Jarden A, Oades L, editors. Wellbeing: Recovery and Mental Health: CUP; 2017.
    1. Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, Platt S, Parkinson J, Weich S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish health education population survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-15.
    1. Crawford MJ, Robotham D, Thana L, Patterson S, Weaver T, Barber R, et al. Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users. J Ment Health (Abingdon, England). 2011;20(4):336–46.
    1. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273(1):59–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520250075037.
    1. Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ. 2001;322(7297):1297–1300. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1297.
    1. Maheswaran H, Weich S, Powell J, Stewart-Brown S. Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): group and individual level analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:156. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-156.
    1. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–8.
    1. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):Ii84–Ii90.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(2):285–295. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2.
    1. Eisen SV, Ranganathan G, Seal P, Spiro A., 3rd Measuring clinically meaningful change following mental health treatment. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2007;34(3):272–289. doi: 10.1007/s11414-007-9066-2.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. Andrews WP, Parsons AA, Rawle H, Gibbs J. A pilot investigation of quest institute cognitive hypnotherapy services using improving access to psychological therapies as the benchmark. Ment Health Rev J. 2015;20(3):199–210. doi: 10.1108/MHRJ-08-2014-0030.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882.
    1. Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15. doi: 10.5334/ijic.65.
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–592.
    1. Lemieux J, Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bordeleau LJ, Goodwin PJ. Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(5):448–55.
    1. Daly LE. Confidence limits made easy: interval estimation using a substitution method. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147(8):783–790. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009523.
    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(9):861–873. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.
    1. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(1):12. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.
    1. Fat LN, Scholes S, Boniface S, Mindell J, Stewart-Brown S. Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick–Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS): findings from the health survey for England. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:1129.
    1. Zou GY. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1545–1552. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0027-4.
    1. Norman G, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL. The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(5):815–822. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x.
    1. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163–170. doi: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться