Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32706730›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2020

Assessment of Population Well-Being With the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ): Development and Usability Study.

Jennifer Jane Newson, Tara C Thiagarajan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. FIGO best practice recommendations for the mental health of women at menopausal age.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jennifer Jane NewsonSapien Labs, Arlington, VA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6732-5991
Tara C ThiagarajanSapien Labs, Arlington, VA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5664-3281

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting mental health assessment tools provide an incomplete picture of symptom experience and create ambiguity, bias, and inconsistency in mental health outcomes. Furthermore, by focusing on disorders and dysfunction, they do not allow a view of mental health and well-being across a general population.

objectiveThis study aims to demonstrate the outcomes and validity of a new web-based assessment tool called the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which is designed for the general population. The MHQ covers the complete breadth of clinical mental health symptoms and also captures healthy mental functioning to provide a complete profile of an individual's mental health from clinical to thriving.

methodsThe MHQ was developed based on the coding of symptoms assessed in 126 existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-based psychiatric assessment tools as well as neuroscientific criteria laid out by Research Domain Criteria to arrive at a comprehensive set of semantically distinct mental health symptoms and attributes. These were formulated into questions on a 9-point scale with both positive and negative dimensions and developed into a web-based tool that takes approximately 14 min to complete. As its output, the assessment provides overall MHQ scores as well as subscores for 6 categories of mental health that distinguish clinical and at-risk groups from healthy populations based on a nonlinear scoring algorithm. MHQ items were also mapped to the DSM fifth edition (DSM-5), and clinical diagnostic criteria for 10 disorders were applied to the MHQ outcomes to cross-validate scores labeled at-risk and clinical. Initial data were collected from 1665 adult respondents to test the tool.

resultsScores in the normal healthy range spanned from 0 to 200 for the overall MHQ, with an average score of approximately 100 (SD 45), and from 0 to 100 with average scores between 48 (SD 21) and 55 (SD 22) for subscores in each of the 6 mental health subcategories. Overall, 2.46% (41/1665) and 13.09% (218/1665) of respondents were classified as clinical and at-risk, respectively, with negative scores. Validation against DSM-5 diagnostic criteria showed that 95% (39/41) of those designated clinical were positive for at least one DSM-5-based disorder, whereas only 1.14% (16/1406) of those with a positive MHQ score met the diagnostic criteria for a mental health disorder.

conclusionsThe MHQ provides a fast, easy, and comprehensive way to assess population mental health and well-being; identify at-risk individuals and subgroups; and provide diagnosis-relevant information across 10 disorders.

Indexed as

anxietyattention deficit disorder with hyperactivityautistic disorderbehavioral symptomsdepressiondiagnosisglobal healthinternetmental disordersmental healthmethodsmhealthpopulation healthpsychiatrypsychopathologypublic healthsocial determinants of healthsymptom assessment

Identifiers

PMID32706730
PMCPMC7400040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.