Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36011741›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Psychometric Properties of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index among Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three Countries.

Mariela Loreto Lara-Cabrera, Moisés Betancort, Amparo Muñoz-Rubilar, Natalia Rodríguez-Novo, Ottar Bjerkeset, Carlos De Las Cuevas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Adult Hope Scale: validation in older adults.Australian journal of psychology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Mariela Loreto Lara-CabreraDepartment of Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7091 Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7342-9049
Moisés BetancortDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7790-8557
Amparo Muñoz-RubilarFaculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Central de Chile, Santiago 8370178, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-9953-9054
Natalia Rodríguez-NovoDepartament of Nursing, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7492-5063
Ottar BjerkesetFaculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, Levanger Campus, 8026 Levanger, Norway.
Carlos De Las CuevasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dermatology and Psychiatry, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5742-905X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nurses' well-being has been increasingly recognised due to the ongoing pandemic. However, no validation scales measuring nurses' well-being currently exist. Thus, we aimed to validate the WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in a sample of nurses. A cross-sectional multinational study was conducted, and a total of 678 nurses who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain (36.9%), Chile (40.0%) and Norway (23.1%) participated in this study. The nurses completed the WHO-5, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2) and three questions about the quality of life (QoL). The WHO-5 demonstrated good reliability and validity in the three countries. Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.81 to 0.90. High correlations were found between the WHO-5 and the psychological well-being dimension of QoL, and negative correlations between the WHO-5 and PHQ-2. The unidimensional scale structure was confirmed in all the countries, explaining more than 68% of the variance. The item response theory likelihood ratio model did not show discernible differences in the WHO-5 across the countries. To conclude, the WHO-5 is a psychometrically sound scale for measuring nurses' well-being during a pandemic. The scale showed strong construct validity for cross-cultural comparisons; however, more research is required with larger sample sizes.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesWorld Health OrganizationCOVID-19cross-culturalitem response theorymeasurement invariancemental healthnursing staffpandemicspublic healthvalidationWHO-5 Well-Being Index

Identifiers

PMID36011741
PMCPMC9407690

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.