Patient-reported well-being: psychometric properties of the world health organization well-being index in specialised community mental health settings
Abstract
The Five-item World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) is an increasingly used measure of generic well-being, but there is no evidence to support whether outpatients consider the questionnaire valuable. As the WHO-5 has not yet been psychometrically evaluated in specialised community mental health settings, an evaluation of its validity seems warranted. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the psychometric properties of the WHO-5 in this type of setting. Data was collected from an outpatient center (N = 191 adults). Results indicate that the questionnaire was feasible to administer (n = 57 patients), it reported low mean Burden-scores and high Positive-Value scores, and had excellent internal consistency. No evidence of floor or ceiling effects was found. Results supported the unidimensional structure of the questionnaire. Significant differences were found concerning patients' diagnoses, with patients with schizophrenia diagnoses reporting higher scores and patients with depression and personality disorders reporting lower ones. When comparing the WHO-5 total score and patients' attitudes toward medication, negative correlations were observed with psychological reactance, as well as positive aspects of psychiatric medication. The present study demonstrates that the WHO-5 is feasible to administer and has robust psychometric properties in specialised community mental health centres.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The WHO-5 is a widely administered PRO that can be used irrespective of underlying illness (or lack of illness), and has been thoroughly validated across many different mental health settings.
“The WHO-5 is a widely administered PRO that can be used irrespective of underlying illness (or lack of illness), and has been thoroughly validated across many different mental health settings [84–87].”
From Patient-reported outcome measures for life engagement in mental health: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 37
- Authors
- Lara-Cabrera, M. L., Mundal, I. P., & De Las Cuevas, C.
- Affiliations
- Molde University College (NO)
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 291
- Pages
- 113268
- ISSN
- 0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3039357020
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- WHO-5, psychometric properties, validity, schizophrenia, depression, personality disorders, reactance, questionnaire feasibility, internal consistency
- MeSH terms
- Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, World Health Organization, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review