ArticleBMC psychology2025
Development and preliminary validation of mental health check-up questionnaire in Korea.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop and validate the Mental Health Check-up Questionnaire (MHCQ), a short assessment tool for identifying early signs of mental health issues and evaluating decreases in positive aspects of mental health.
methodsThe MHCQ was developed based on a review of mental health prevalence data and a survey of screening needs in Korea, covering seven problem domains and one positive domain. The positive domain was designed based on the view that mental health includes more than just the absence of symptoms and encompasses resources for dealing with stress and sustaining productivity and well-being. After expert review, the 66-item questionnaire was administered to 500 participants aged 20 to 70.
resultsFactor analyses identified 51 items consistent with the theoretical framework, demonstrating high reliability with an internal consistency ranging from 0.83 to 0.95. Correlations with established mental health measures supported the MHCQ's convergent and discriminant validity.
conclusionThe MHCQ demonstrates preliminary evidence as a concise and reliable mental health screening tool. Future work should establish test-retest and clinical validity using larger, integrated health-lifestyle datasets and develop pathways for integrating the MHCQ into healthcare systems.
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.