Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41030056›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2025

Evaluating the reliability and validity of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 among people with mental health conditions in seven low- and middle-income countries: analysis of secondary data.

Awoke Mihretu, Sarah Aleyan, Jessica Schmider, Charlotte Hanlon, Crick Lund, Ricardo Araya, Alicia White, Kassahun Habtamu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Awoke MihretuDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5956-114X
Sarah AleyanEconomist Impact, The Economist Group, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0842-1147
Jessica SchmiderEconomist Impact, The Economist Group, London, UK.
Charlotte HanlonDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Crick LundCentre for Global Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-8220
Ricardo ArayaCentre for Global Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Alicia WhiteEconomist Impact, The Economist Group, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0377-041X
Kassahun HabtamuSchool of Psychology, College of Education and Behavioural Studies, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) has been validated across various settings and health conditions. However, few studies have evaluated the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) among individuals with mental health conditions.

aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in populations with depression, anxiety and psychosis from seven LMICs.

methodSecondary analyses were carried out using existing longitudinal data-sets in adult populations with depression, anxiety and psychosis across Brazil, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru and South Africa. Reliability, validity and responsiveness to change of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 were examined.

resultsThe 12-item WHODAS-2.0 was acceptably one-dimensional for all data-sets at baseline, with model-fit indices ranging from moderate to excellent. Internal consistency of the measure was found to be high across settings (Cronbach's

conclusionThe 12-item WHODAS 2.0 generally showed acceptable psychometric properties across different settings and mental health conditions. However, high variability was observed in convergent validity and external responsiveness to change, which warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

Disability assessmentfunctional impairmentlow- and middle-income countriespsychometric propertiesWHO Disability Assessment Schedule

Identifiers

PMID41030056
PMCPMC12529340

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.