Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Examining the relationship between the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and EQ-5D-5L and comparing their psychometric properties

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 21, Article number: 25 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and EQ-5D-5L and compare their psychometric properties in 4 chronic conditions in China.

Methods

Participants were invited to complete the online survey. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to evaluate the correlation between SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L; exploratory factor analysis was used to ascertain the number of unique underlying latent factors measured by SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L. Next, we assessed the psychometric properties of SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L by reporting distributions and examining their known-group validity and convergent validity.

Results

In total, 500 individuals participated the online survey. Spearman’s rank correlation showed that EQ-5D-5L dimensions, except for the anxiety/depression dimension, were weakly correlated with all dimensions of SWEMWBS. The two-factor solution for exploratory factor analysis found that all of SWEMWBS dimensions loaded onto one factor, four EQ-5D-5L dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities and pain/discomfort) onto another, and the EQ-5D-5L item of anxiety/depression item loaded moderately onto both factors. Patients of four disease groups had different distributions of responses for both SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L. In terms of known-group validity, both the F statistic and AUROC value of EQ-5D-5L utility scores were significantly higher than SWEMWBS scores in all four pair-wised comparisons. The Pearson correlation coefficient between EQ-5D-5L utility scores, SWEMWBS scores and EQ-VAS was 0.44 (P < 0.01) and 0.65 (P < 0.01), respectively.

Conclusions

SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L measure different constructs and can be seen as complementary measures. Both measures demonstrated good convergent validity and known-group validity with EQ-5D-5L being a more sensitive measure, even for mental conditions.

Background

The EQ-5D-5L is a widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument and its descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility (MO), self-care (SC), usual activities (UA), pain/discomfort (PD), and anxiety/depression (AD) [1]. The brevity of the EQ-5D-5L makes it a popular patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), in addition to its primary use as a tool to calculate health utility value [2]. Compared to other PROMs that can provide rich information on different aspects of HRQoL, EQ-5D-5L may not be comprehensive and may be insensitive in measuring mental health, especially the construct of positive mental health [3]. This is mainly because the five dimensions of EQ-5D-5L are more focused on physical and functioning health, with only one dimension of anxiety/depression directly measuring mental health problems. Positive mental health is defined as an optimal way of psychological functioning and a general feeling of well-being [4]. In contrast, negative mental health includes deleterious facets such as health problems, psychopathology or psychiatric disorders.

Mental well-being covers two perspectives: hedonic well-being relates to a subjective appraisal of life satisfaction, affective emotions and moods, while eudaimonic well-being focuses on individuals’ psychological functioning and self-actualization [5, 6]. The Warwick-Edinburgh Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) was developed in 2007 and has been broadly used to measure positive mental well-being [7]. WEMWBS is a 14-item instrument, which assesses affective-emotional aspects, cognitive evaluative dimensions, and psychological functioning [8]. In 2009, a brief 7-item version, the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) was developed using the Rasch modeling method [9]. The short version focuses more on functioning than subjective aspects of mental well-being, with fewer items covering hedonic well-being or affect. However, the SWEMWBS was found to have preferable psychometric properties than the full version given its robust measurement properties and with the advantage of its additional brevity, and has been widely used in many population studies globally [8]. SWEMWBS has been translated into Chinese, Swedish and Norwegian languages [10, 11] and its validity and reliability have been demonstrated in the general population and hospitalized patients with mental illness in Hong Kong [10, 12, 13] and other populations (e.g. deaf British sign language users, Norwegian adults, and adolescents, Swedish adults, people with schizophrenia, depression and anxiety spectrum disorders in Singapore [11, 14,15,16].

EQ-5D-5L measures both physical health and mental health, but there is only one item (i.e., anxiety/depression) measures the construct of mental health, it is not clear whether this item could measure positive mental health, as measured by SWEMWBS. For this reason, we conducted this head-to-head study to understand the relationship between EQ-5D-5L (a HRQoL measure) with SWEMWBS (a positive mental health measure). Moreover, compared to the large number of studies investigating population HRQoL using EQ-5D-5L [17, 18], the number of studies evaluating the population’s mental well-being using SWEMWBS is scarce in China [11,12,13]. Studies have shown that positive mental well-being can affect health and social outcomes [19, 20]. In this study, we aimed to examine the relationship between the SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L and compared their psychometric properties in individuals with 4 chronic conditions including chronic hepatitis B (CHB), depression, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and HIV/AIDS in China.

Methods

Study design

This study utilized the psychometric survey data of the E-QALY project collected in China [21, 22]. The E-QALY project aims to develop a new generic measure that covers a broader quality of life construct, which is relevant to health, social care, and public health sectors [23]. The online survey includes a set of demographic questions, health condition status and caring experience, followed by 64 candidate E-QALY items, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS. The sample size was fixed at 500 [24,25,26] considering the primary purpose of the data was used to conduct factor analysis and spearman correlation coefficients analysis for developing EQ-HWB [22]. This is a sufficient sample size for this study given that published EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS validation and comparison studies used a sample size of 500 or less [16, 27,28,29,30]. This data was collected between April and July 2019 online by Accent, a U.K. online survey company. Quotas and inclusion criteria were applied to recruit a sample of 500 participants who lived in China and were aged above 18, in which there were similar numbers of individuals with GAD, HIV/AIDS, CHB, or depression, or without any of those 4 chronic conditions. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Sheffield, United Kingdom (Approval letter number 025524) and the IRB of Jinan University, China (Approval letter number JNUKY-2020–001). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the online survey.

The online survey began by giving an outline of the research purpose. Participants were then asked to report their disease history. Eligible respondents reported their background information including education level, gender, age, etc. Next, respondents were asked to respond to the core survey that includes the E-QALY candidate items, two versions of EQ-5D descriptive systems, EQ-VAS (only completed once) and SWEMWBS. This study utilized the background information, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS data collected in the psychometric survey in China. The order of completing the SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L was also randomized with half of sample completing SWEMWBS first and the other half completing EQ-5D-5L first.

Instruments

The EQ-5D-5L is a generic preference-based HRQoL instrument developed by the EuroQol Group. It was translated into simplified Chinese following a strict translation process [4] and its validity and reliability have been demonstrated in different health conditions [5,6,7,8,9] in China. It consists of a five-item descriptive system and a visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) [31, 32]. The descriptive system has five health dimensions, i.e., mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression, and five response levels (1 = no problems, 2 = slight problems, 3 = moderate problems, 4 = severe problems and 5 = unable/extreme problems) for each dimension. An important characteristic of EQ-5D-5L is it allows the calculation of health utility values that reflect the desirability of a health state. In this study, EQ-5D-5L health utility values were calculated using the value set of China [33]. The EQ-VAS records the respondent’s current self-rated health on a 20-cm-long vertical thermometer-like scale from 0 (‘Worst imaginable health state’) to 100 (‘Best imaginable health state’).

The SWEMWBS is the short version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental well-being Scale (WEMWBS), which was developed to measure the mental well-being of the general population. The SWEMWBS consists of seven questions: I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future (OP), I’ve been feeling useful (USE), I’ve been feeling relaxed (RE), I’ve been dealing with problems well (PR), I’ve been thinking clearly (CL), I’ve been feeling close to other people (CLO), and I’ve been able to make up my mind about things (MI) and each question includes five frequency options (1 = none of the time, 2 = rarely, 3 = some of the time, 4 = often and 5 = all of the time) [9]. The Simplified Chinese translation was obtained from the developer of WEMWBS, which was translated by Dong et al. [34]. Raw level summary score (LSS) was summed and converted to metric total score using the SWEMWBS conversion table [9].

Note the response levels reversed between SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L on item level, with a higher response indicating better results for SWEMWBS but worse results for EQ-5D-5L. On aggregate level, higher score suggests better results for both EQ-5D-5L utility value, EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS overall score. In addition, the recall periods differed as EQ-5D-5L uses ‘today’ and SWEMWBS uses ‘over the past two weeks’.

Statistical analyses

We first described the characteristics of our sample and examined the relationship of the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to evaluate the association between the EQ-5D-5L dimensions and SWEMWBS dimensions. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to ascertain the number of unique underlying latent factors associated with the attributes assessed by the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS. Secondly, we assessed their psychometric properties. The distributions of the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS were reported. Specifically, items with over 70% of respondents reporting the best state and the worst state suggesting ceiling effect and floor effect respectively [35]. Known-group validity between healthy and each condition group was assessed for EQ-5D-5L utility, EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS score. Convergent validity was examined for EQ-5D-5L utility and SWEMWBS score using EQ-VAS as a benchmark. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp (2013) and Mplus 8.3 Combo Version for Windows.

Association

Spearman’s rank correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between the EQ-5D-5L dimensions and SWEMWBS dimensions. Correlations were deemed as weak when scores fell between 0.10 and 0.29, moderate when between 0.30 and 0.49, and strong when greater than 0.5 [36,37,38]. Statistical significance was set at the 5% level. Since SWEMWBS measures mental well-being, we hypothesized that its dimensions have low correlations with EQ-5D-5L dimensions, except for anxiety/depression, which measures mental health.

Exploratory factor analysis

The purpose of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is to reduce data dimensionality and to ascertain relatively few factors to describe the observed correlations among variables [39, 40]. In the EFA, data were sifted using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (> 0.5) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (< 0.05) [41]. The KMO value ranged from 0 to 1, with greater than 0.60 considered suitable for factor analysis. The number of factors retained was selected according to the Kaiser Criterion [26], which claims retaining factors with eigenvalues bigger than 1 and using the scree plot to evaluate the suitability of this choice. The parallel analysis was run to ascertain the number of factors to be retained in model [42, 43]. We applied 1,000 random data sets to conduct the parallel analysis and then overlaid the results onto a single plot with the scree plot. Factors with eigenvalues in the observed data that are greater than the simulated data suggest “true” factors. Using an oblique Promax rotation allows for the potential that factors are correlated. Examining the rotated factor matrix, we identified items with pattern coefficients of 0.40 or greater as contributing to a factor and retained them. EFA was applied to all items from both the EQ-5D-5L (5 items) and the SWEMWBS (7 items).

Known-group validity

Known-group validity was evaluated by examining the mean, standard error (SE), median, and interquartile range (IQR) of EQ-5D-5L utility score, EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS score between healthy and each condition group. We hypothesized that the healthy group would have higher scores than the four disease groups. To investigate how the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS perform in terms of discriminating between healthy and each condition group, the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the distributions of the responses to the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS dimensions. We listed the median values of each dimension as a reference. The efficiency of the EQ-5D-5L/SWEMWBS scores in differentiating between the known groups described above was tested using the F statistics based on the one-way analysis of variance [44,45,46]. F statistic has been used in previous studies as a way of comparing relative efficiency between two instruments [45,46,47]. The F statistic is defined as the ratio of intergroup variance dividing by intragroup variance, which is used for model-level significance tests in the linear regression model. When the model is significant, the value of the F statistic could be interpreted as the advantage of intergroup variance over intragroup variance. As the regression model is increasingly capable of capturing the change of regression target, the intergroup variance is increasingly dominant, and we will also expect a larger value of F statistic [48]. As a result, the index score with a higher F statistic would be supposed to be more efficient than its comparator because a greater value is much more likely to lead to statistical significance. As a complementary analysis, the efficiency of the EQ-5D-5L/SWEMWBS scores was also evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC) [49]. The AUROC value ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with a greater value suggesting better predictive ability.

Convergent validity

Convergent validity was examined for EQ-5D-5L utility and SWEMWBS score using EQ-VAS as a benchmark using the Pearson correlation coefficient, where the absolute value of Pearson correlation coefficient < 0.40 were considered as weak, moderate if between 0.40 and 0.70 and strong if > 0.70. Since the EQ-VAS fully evaluates the respondent’s overall state of health including physical health and mental health, we hypothesized that EQ-VAS has a positive correlation with the EQ-5D-5L utility scores and SWEMWBS scores.

Results

In total, 500 individuals participated the online survey, including 140 healthy individuals, 122 individuals with CHB, 107 with depression, 90 individuals with GAD and 101 with HIV/AIDS. Some respondents reported multiple conditions, e.g. 68 individuals reported both depression and GAD. In general, the whole study sample was young. The gender proportions of the five groups were generally balanced except for the group of HIV/AIDS, in which, about 87.1% of individuals were female. In terms of the age distribution, the healthy group was mostly young (mean 31.02 years old, SD: 8.55); the CHB group had more participants aged between 40 and 49; the depression and GAD groups had individuals from all four age groups, and the HIV/AIDS group aged mainly from 30 to 49. Individuals with tertiary education accounted for over 80% for all four disease groups and the healthy group had more individuals with secondary education. Table 1 shows the demographic information by condition.

Table 1 Sample characteristics
Full size table

Table 2 shows Spearman’s correlation coefficients of the total sample between the EQ-5D-5L domains and the SWEMWBS domains. Dimensions MO, SC, UA and PD of the EQ-5D-5L showed weak correlations with all dimensions of the SWEMWBS with the correlation coefficients ranging from 0.001 to -0.294 except that dimensions PD of the EQ-5D-5L showed moderate (ρ = -0.344) correlations with dimensions OP of the SWEMWBS. As expected, the dimension AD of the EQ-5D-5L showed a moderate correlation with dimensions OP (ρ = -0.496), USE (ρ = -0.396), RE (ρ = -0.483), PR (ρ = -0.361), CL (ρ = -0.331), CLO (ρ = -0.400), and MI (ρ = 0.353) of the SWEMWBS, respectively.

Table 2 Correlation (Spearman) between baseline domain scores for SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L
Full size table

In this study, the KMO was 0.910, indicating that the sample was adequate for performing factor analysis, and the Bartlett’s sphericity test was approximately χ2 = 4029.67, DF = 66, P < 0.001, indicating that the relationship among the variables was strong and the data were suitable to run an EFA [50]. The results of the EFA were shown in Table 3. Considering a scree plot, parallel analysis (Fig. 1) and the number of eigenvalues bigger than one, a two-factor solution was observed to be optimal which indicated that two separate, but correlated factors are evaluated by the pooled items of EQ-5D-5L and the SWEMWBS. The majority of EQ-5D-5L items (MO, SC, UA and PD) loaded onto factor 2 with a factor loading from 0.741 of PD item to 0.896 of MO item, while all of SWEMWBS items loaded onto factor 1 with a factor loading from 0.816 of OP item to 0.863 of PR item. These two factors explained 47.4% and 22.2% of variance respectively. The EQ-5D-5L item of AD loaded onto both factors (factor one = -0.608; factor 2 = 0.593).

Table 3 Exploratory factor analysis comparing the SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L items
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The parallel analysis of all items from both the SWEMWBS (7 items) and EQ-5D-5L (5 items)

Full size image

Figure 2 shows the distributions of the EQ-5D-5L dimension and SWEMWBS dimension of the total sample. For the EQ-5D-5L, the majority of respondents reported ‘no problems’ in dimensions of MO (61.6%), SC (67.0%) and UA (58.4%). The EQ-5D-5L did not have many responses from level 4 and 5. The SWEMWBS had responses for all levels and the highest percentage was reporting ‘often’ in each dimension, especially in dimensions of OP, USE, CLO and MI, with 42.8%, 38.8%, 38.0% and 37.8%, respectively.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Response distributions of SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L. MO: Mobility; SC: Self-care; UA: Usual activities; PD: Pain/discomfort; AD: Anxiety/depression. OP: Feeling optimistic about the future; USE: Feeling useful; RE:Feeling relaxed; PR: Dealing with problems well; CL: Thinking clearly; CLO:Feeling close to other people; MI: Able to make up my own mind about things

Full size image

Table 4 shows the mean, standard error (SE), median and interquartile range (IQR) of the EQ-5D-5L utility scores, EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS scores. The total sample covered nearly all possible score ranges, with a mean of 0.82 (range =  − 0.31 to 1.0), 77.4 (range = 3–100) and 25.9 (range = 7–35), respectively. The mean scores of healthy group were 0.95(SE: 0.08), 83.1(SE: 0.23), 25.1(SE: 0.20), followed by HIV/AIDS of 0.78 (SE: 0.23), 84.7(SE: 0.13), 25.7(SE:0.17), CHB of 0.78(SE: 0.23), 73.7(SE: 0.25), 23.7 (SE: 0.18), depression of 0.75 (SE: 0.27), 67.1 (SE: 0.34), 21.3(SE: 0.25) and GAD of 0.72 (SE: 0.30), 63.9 (SE: 0.37), 20.7(SE: 0.26). In general, the median scores of healthy group were higher than four disease groups. Table 4 also reveals the median responses to EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS dimensions. For the EQ-5D-5L, the median response of the healthy group was ‘no problems’ across the five dimensions and ‘slight problems’ for HIV/AIDS. The median responses of CHB, depression and GAD were ‘no problems ‘across the two dimensions of ‘mobility’ and ‘self-care’, with mostly ‘slight problems’ across other three dimensions. For the SWEMWBS, the median responses of the healthy group were ‘often’ for all dimensions, while the median responses for depression and GAD were ‘some of the time’. The median responses of CHB and HIV/AIDS were mostly ‘often’ across all dimensions. The Mann–Whitney results were mostly significant at 0.01 level suggesting patients of four disease groups had different distributions of responses against the healthy group for both EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS.

Table 4 Score distribution of the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS
Full size table

The results of the efficiency of the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS are shown in Table 5. The F statistic of the EQ-5D-5L utility scores ranged from 92.19 of the CHB group to 179.05 of HIV/AIDS group, EQ-VAS ranged from 0.62 of HIV/AIDS group to 46.44 of the GAD group, and SWEMWBS scores ranged from 0.99 of HIV/AIDS group to 39.50 of the GAD group. The AUROC value of the EQ-5D-5L utility scores ranged from 0.81 of the CHB group to 0.92 of HIV/AIDS group, EQ-VAS ranged from 0.53 of HIV/AIDS group to 0.77 of the GAD group, and SWEMWBS scores ranged from 0.43 of HIV/AIDS group to 0.74 of the GAD group. It was clear that both EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS demonstrated good known-group validity, except that the EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS did not show a statistically significant result in the comparison of the healthy and HIV/AIDS groups. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the EQ-5D-5L utility scores, SWEMWBS scores and EQ-VAS was 0.44 (P < 0.01) and 0.65 (P < 0.01), respectively, indicating a moderate correlation.

Table 5 Efficiency of the EQ-5D-5L utility, EQ-VAS and SWEMWBS score
Full size table

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L and compared their psychometric properties in 4 chronic conditions including CHB, depression, GAD and HIV/AIDS in China. The items of SWEMWBS did not show strong correlations with EQ-5D-5L items, indicating these two instruments measured different constructs. The two-factor solution for EFA supported the conclusion as their items loaded on different factors with the exception that AD dimension of EQ-5D-5L also loaded on the 1st factor with all other SWEMWBS items. In terms of measurement properties, all five responses levels were used in EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS. No ceiling effects and floor effects were found in both instruments. Both EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS showed good known-group validity and convergent validity, with EQ-5D-5L having stronger discriminative ability but SWEMWBS having a higher correlation with EQ-VAS. Our study showed that both EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS were valid instruments measuring different constructs.

Dimensions MO, SC, UA, and PD of the EQ-5D-5L showed weak correlations with all dimensions of the SWEMWBS, suggesting good discriminant validity of both instruments. This was confirmed by the EFA results that these two instruments mainly loaded on different factors. The two-factor solution for the EFA found that all SWEMWBS items loaded onto the first factor, which could be interpreted as ‘mental well-being’, and all five EQ-5D-5L items loaded onto the second factor, which could be characterized as ‘physical health’. Notably, AD dimension from EQ-5D-5L loaded onto physical health factor was consistent with the research in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients conducted by Yao Xiong et al. [51], where the anxiety/depression dimension was loaded onto the same factor with the four dimensions of the EQ-5D. Xun Ran et al. also found that all dimensions except for the self-care dimension of EQ-5D loaded onto the same factor with the physical health and mental health dimensions of Well-being of Older People (WOOP) [52], which indicated anxiety/depression dimension including physical health and mental health. Our study indicated that the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS are measuring two different constructs and therefore provided largely unique and complementary information, that is, the SWEMWBS measures positive mental well-being as intended, while the EQ-5D-5L measures HRQoL which covers both mental well-being and physical health. Since anxiety/depression also loaded on the mental well-being factor, it indicated that EQ-5D is able to measure both mental well-being and physical health.

Both the EQ-5D-5L and SWEMWBS showed good known-group validity and acceptable convergent validity results. As expected, the mean utility score of EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS for the healthy group were higher than the scores of the four disease groups, indicating good known-group validity. The F statistic and AUROC value of the EQ-5D-5L utility scores were significantly higher than the SWEMWBS scores in all four comparisons, which demonstrated that the EQ-5D-5L has a stronger discriminative ability in these four conditions groups that covered two chronic physical conditions and two mental conditions. The validity of EQ-5D-5L had been widely proven in previous studies [53,54,55,56]. The poorer efficiency of SWEMWBS differentiating healthy group and four disease groups was expected because SWEMWBS only measures positive mental well-being and there lacked research examining how health conditions could affect one’s positive mental well-being. The validity of SWEMWBS had also been widely reported in China, for example, Sun et al., Ng et al. and Fung reported that the Chinese SWEMWBS showed good validity and reliability for measuring mental well-being in the general population and populations with mental conditions [10, 12, 13]. However, more work is still needed to assess the sensitivity and test–retest reliability of the SWEMWBS measure.

The Pearson correlation coefficients between the EQ-5D-5L utility scores, SWEMWBS scores, and EQ-VAS showed a moderate correlation, indicating satisfactory convergent validity for both instruments. Remarkably, SWEMWBS had a larger correlation with EQ-VAS score, which measures a broader underlying construct of health [57]. Since SWEMWBS measures only positive mental well-being and EQ-5D-5L measures HRQoL that covers both physical and mental health, we would expect EQ-5D-5L to have a higher correlation with EQ-VAS, but this was not the case from our results. A possible explanation is that the utility of EQ-5D-5L represents the preference of the general public and both EQ-VAS and the SWEMWBS score represent the views of the respondent [58].

There are some limitations for this study. First, the study sample was young and highly educated. It should be due to the fact that old people and less educated people are less active on the Internet. Therefore, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to older populations. Second, some respondents reported more than one condition, but we did not provide a deep analysis about the possible effect of multi-conditions. It should be noted that our sample was recruited online and the health condition was self-reported. Ideally, clinical data is used to verify the presence and absence of diagnoses reported by the study subjects. Besides, the online survey might not bring good validity because we were not sure whether the samples completed the questionnaire by themselves. Last but not least, this study focused on analyzing how these two measures were associated and their psychometric properties. There may be a more complex relationship between positive mental well-being and PROM, as it may be hypothesized that respondents with positive mental well-being are more likely to cope with health problems and report no problems for PROM measures like EQ-5D-5L. Future studies should investigate this.

Conclusions

SWEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L measure different constructs and can be seen as complementary measures. Both measures demonstrated good convergent validity and known-group validity with EQ-5D-5L being a more sensitive measure, even for mental conditions.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

WHO:

World Health Organization

MO:

Mobility

SC:

Self-care

UA:

Usual activities

PD:

Pain/discomfort

AD:

Anxiety/depression

PROM:

Patient reported outcome measure

WEMWBS:

Warwick-Edinburgh Well-Being Scale

SWEMWBS:

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale

CHB:

Chronic hepatitis B

GAD:

Generalized anxiety disorder

E-QALY:

Extending the quality-adjusted life year

EQ-VAS:

EQ visual analogue scale

OP:

‘I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future

USE:

‘I’ve been feeling useful

RE:

‘I’ve been feeling relaxed

PR:

‘I’ve been dealing with problems well

CL:

‘I’ve been thinking clearly

CLO:

‘I’ve been feeling close to other people

MI:

‘I’ve been able to make up my own mind about things

LSS:

Level summary score

EFA:

Exploratory factor analysis

KMO:

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

SE:

Standard error

IQR:

Interquartile range

AUROC:

Area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve

SE:

Standard error; IQR: interquartile range

References

  1. Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases JM. Self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. New York: Springer; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang A, Rand K, Yang Z, et al. The remarkably frequent use of EQ-5D in non-economic research. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23:1007–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1063–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schönfeld P, Brailovskaia J, Bieda A, et al. The effects of daily stress on positive and negative mental health: Mediation through self-efficacy. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2016;16:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well being. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):141–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ryff CD. Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. J HAPPINESS STUD. 2008;9:13–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ng Fat L, Scholes S, Boniface S, et al. 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;26:1129–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, et al. 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;7:15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ng SS, Lo AW, Leung TK, et al. Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale for patients with mental illness in Hong Kong. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2014;24:3–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Haver A, Akerjordet K, Caputi P, et al. Measuring mental well-being: a validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2015;43:721–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sun Y, Luk TT, Wang MP, et al. The reliability and validity of the Chinese Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale in the general population of Hong Kong. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:2813–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fung SF. Psychometric evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) with Chinese University Students. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rogers KD, Dodds C, Campbell M, et al. The validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) with deaf British sign language users in the UK. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ringdal R, Bradley Eilertsen ME, Bjørnsen HN, et al. Validation of two versions of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale among norwegian adolescents. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46:718–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaingankar JA, Abdin E, Chong SA, et al. Psychometric properties of the short Warwick Edinburgh mental well-being scale (SWEMWBS) in service users with schizophrenia, depression and anxiety spectrum disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang Z, Busschbach J, Liu G, et al. EQ-5D-5L norms for the urban Chinese population in China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu W, Zhou L, Chu J, et al. Estimating population norms for the health-related quality of life of adults in southern Jiangsu Province. China Scientific reports. 2022;12:9906.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huppert FA. Positive mental health in individuals and populations. In: The Science of Well-being. 2004. p. 307–40.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Linley PA, Joseph S. Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.

  21. Weng G, Hong Y, Luo N, et al. Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China. Eur J Health Econ. 2023;24:197–207.

  22. Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Brazier J, et al. Developing a new generic health and wellbeing measure: psychometric survey results for the EQ-HWB. Value Health. 2022;25:525–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brazier J, Peasgood T, Mukuria C, et al. The EQ-HWB: overview of the development of a measure of health and wellbeing and key results. Value Health. 2022;25:482–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Selva-Sevilla C, Ferrara P, Gerónimo-Pardo M. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:649–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Goodwin PC, Ratcliffe J, Morris J, et al. Using the knee-specific Hughston Clinic Questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery: a comparison of psychometric properties. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1437–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic-computers to factor-analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:141–51.

  27. Shah N, Cader M, Andrews B, et al. Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Yfantopoulos J, Chantzaras A, Kontodimas S. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2017;309:357–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rencz F, Lakatos PL, Gulácsi L, et al. Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:141–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Poór AK, Rencz F, Brodszky V, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:3409–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Luo N, Liu G, Li M, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for China. Value Health. 2017;20:662–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dong A, Chen X, Zhu L, et al. Translation and validation of a Chinese version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale with undergraduate nursing trainees. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2016;23:554–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Brazier J, et al. Developing a new generic health and wellbeing measure: psychometric survey results for the EQ-HWB. Value Health. 2022;25:525–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24:69–71.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Overholser BR, Sowinski KM. Biostatistics primer: part 2. Nutr Clin Pract. 2008;23:76–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126:1763–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Suhr, D.D. Principal component analysis vs. exploratory factor analysis. In Proceedings of the SAS Users Group International 30, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 10–13 April 2005; pp. 1–11.

  40. Joliffe, J.T. Principal Components Analysis, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 9780080448947.

  41. Emerson RW. Exploratory factor analysis. J Visual Impairment Blindness. 2017;111(3):301–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wood ND, AkloubouGnonhosou DC, Bowling J. Combining parallel and exploratory factor analysis in identifying relationship scales in secondary data. Marriage Fam Rev. 2015;51:385–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang XZ, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Med Care. 2009;47:53–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Genovese BJ, et al. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:557–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim TK. Understanding one-way ANOVA using conceptual figures. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017;70:22–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39:31–36.

  51. Xiong Y, Wu H, Xu J. Assessing the reliability and validity of the ICECAP-A instrument in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:5.

  52. Yao Xiong HW, Xu J. A head-to-head comparison of Well-being of Older People (WOOP) and EQ-5D-5L in patients, carers and general public in China. 2022. PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jiang J, Hong Y, Zhang T, et al. Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(7):2045–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhu J, Yan XX, Liu CC, et al. Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing. Qual Life Res. 2020.

  55. Xia J, Wu NW, Ma TP, et al. [Evaluation of reliability and validity of EQ-5D-5L based on residents in Southwest China]. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;51:691–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bilbao A, García-Pérez L, Arenaza JC, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality Life Res. 2018;27:2897–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Quality Life Res. 2014;23:977–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cheng LJ, Tan RL, Luo N. Measurement properties of the EQ VAS around the globe: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Value Health. 2021;24:1223–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Yanming Hong

  2. Tianhe Foreign Language School, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Xinru Jiang

  3. College of Pharmacy, Jinan University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Tiantian Zhang

  4. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Nan Luo

  5. Health Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, People’s Republic of China

    Zhihao Yang

Authors
  1. Yanming Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xinru Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiantian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nan Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhihao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yanming Hong, Xinru, Jiang and Tiantian Zhang contributed to data acquisition. Yanming Hong analyzed and interpreted the data and draft the manuscript. Zhihao Yang and Nan Luo revised the manuscript. Zhihao Yang contributed to conception, design and interpretation of the results. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhihao Yang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Sheffield, United Kingdom (Approval letter number 025524) and the IRB of Jinan University, China (Approval letter number JNUKY-2020–001). Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The manuscript is approved by all authors for publication.

Competing interests

No Competing interests exist in the submission of this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, Y., Jiang, X., Zhang, T. et al. Examining the relationship between the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and EQ-5D-5L and comparing their psychometric properties. Health Qual Life Outcomes 21, 25 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02108-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02108-y

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us