SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Psychometric properties of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Positive Mental Well-Being in Children: A Preliminary Structural Validation of the Factor Structure of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Changes in dietary habits and mental well-being among university students following an educational intervention: pilot study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Does emotional intelligence mediates workplace stress, mindfulness, person-job-fit, and mental health among bank employees.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Advancing workplace mental health equity in post-apartheid South Africa: an intersectional mixed-methods study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Short Warwick-Edinbugh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) among adolescents and youths.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Determinants of Life Satisfaction and Mental Wellbeing in the Danish General Population: Shared and Distinct Associations.International journal of public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient reported outcomes are increasingly being assessed in many studies due to the demand for reliable and valid measures that enable assessment of such outcomes and comparison of scores between different populations. The Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and its shorter version (SWEMWBS) are widely used questionnaires that assess subjective mental well-being at the population level. The scales have been translated into many languages and are being used in a variety of settings to assess well-being. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the available versions of the scale.
methodsThe protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020149849) reports the psychometric properties reported by validation studies published until 31 December 2023. A search for 'WEMWBS' and/or 'Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale', used in combination with 'validation', was used to search PubMed, Semantic Scholar, OpenGrey, and the first 10 pages of Google Scholar. One author screened all titles after duplicates and unrelated items were removed. The abstracts of the remaining studies (n = 142) were screened and suitable articles were selected for data extraction. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two investigators against the CONSensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) risk of bias assessment checklist. The articles were evaluated and compared based on the reported translation process, internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness to change, and discriminatory power.
resultsFifty-six full-text articles were included in the study and were assessed for adherence to the accepted translation protocol and reporting of reliability and validity criteria. Many studies that have translated the instrument have focused on forward and backward translation without paying much attention to the appraisal of the translation. Most reports of internal consistency were within acceptable limits. However, test-retest reliability was not often assessed. The instrument has been administered online and in person. The instrument was well received by many populations; the instrument was able to capture changes in well-being scores between subgroups and post intervention.
conclusionThe WEMWBS can be used to assess mental well-being in populations; it provides reliable assessments and is responsive to change. Cognitive assessments and pretesting of the scale prior to data collection are strongly advised. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020149849.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.