Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31206049›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2019

Personal Wellbeing Score (PWS)-a short version of ONS4: development and validation in social prescribing.

Tim Benson, Joe Sladen, Andrew Liles, Henry W W Potts

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07347912 (Group-based Resistance Training for Adults With Down Syndrome; a Feasibility Pilot Randomised Control Crossover Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07347912 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Group-based Resistance Training for Adults With Down Syndrome; a Feasibility Pilot Randomised Control Crossover Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSaint John of God Intellectual Disability Services - Dublin South EastRan2024 to 2026Enrolled36ConditionsDown Syndrome, Healthy Aging, Resistance TrainingArmsResistance Training, Services as Usual Control Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. "Frontiers in public health · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Misophonia, self-harm and suicidal ideation.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tim BensonR-Outcomes Ltd, Thatcham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2101-1353
Joe SladenR-Outcomes Ltd, Thatcham, UK.
Andrew LilesR-Outcomes Ltd, Brighton, UK.
Henry W W PottsInstitute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Our aim was to develop a short generic measure of subjective well-being for routine use in patient-centred care and healthcare quality improvement alongside other patient-reported outcome and experience measures. Methods: The Personal Wellbeing Score (PWS) is based on the Office of National Statistics (ONS) four subjective well-being questions (ONS4) and thresholds. PWS is short, easy to use and has the same look and feel as other measures in the same family of measures. Word length and reading age were compared with eight other measures.Anonymous data sets from five social prescribing projects were analysed. Internal structure was examined using distributions, intra-item correlations, Cronbach's α and exploratory factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed based on hypothesised associations with health status, health confidence, patient experience, age, gender and number of medications taken. Scores on referral and after referral were used to assess responsiveness. Results: Differences between PWS and ONS4 include brevity (42 vs 114 words), reading age (9 vs 12 years), response options (4 vs 11), positive wording throughout and a summary score. 1299 responses (60% female, average age 81 years) from people referred to social prescribing services were analysed; missing values were less than 2%. PWS showed good internal reliability (Cronbach's α=0.90). Exploratory factor analysis suggested that all PWS items relate to a single dimension. PWS summary scores correlate positively with health confidence (r=0.60), health status (r=0.58), patient experience (r=0.30) and age group (r=0.24). PWS is responsive to social prescribing intervention. Conclusions: The PWS is a short variant of ONS4. It is easy to use with good psychometric properties, suitable for routine use in quality improvement and health services research.

Indexed as

Health StatusPersonal SatisfactionAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaireshealthcare quality improvementpatient-centred careperformance measuresquality measurementsurveys

Identifiers

PMID31206049
PMCPMC6542444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.