ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
The categorisation of the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale scores: an exploration from an epidemiological perspective.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
Background: There has been a notable increase in the utilisation of SWEMWBS as a measure of mental well-being globally. To enhance its interpretability for both healthcare professionals and laypeople, categorising SWEMWBS scores is considered beneficial. Two approaches have been recommended, yet they have not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to explore the categorisation of the scores from an epidemiological perspective. Methods: Adopting PHQ-9 results, as suggested by the original scale author, to be the benchmarking comparator and employing the epidemiological approach, the concordance between SWEMWBS and PHQ-9 was examined using data from a health survey. The scales were categorised following the recommended cutoffs suggested by the authors. An additional cutoff was generated from the Nonparametric Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Analysis and verified using the multiclass ROC analysis. The agreement indicators, including the sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value, Likelihood Ratio Positive, Likelihood Ratio Negative, and Receiver Operating Characteristic-Area Under the Curve (ROC AUC), were calculated. Results: The categorisation of SWEMWBS scores by benchmarking yielded the highest sensitivity, but the smallest specificity with 86.1% (95% C.I. = 84.1%-87.9%) and 56.6% (95% C.I. = 49.1%- 63.9%) respectively. Categorisation using the mean and SD approach resulted in a sensitivity of 81.3% (95% C.I. = 79.1%- 83.4%) and a specificity of 68.1% (95% C.I. = 60.8%-74.8%). In contrast, categorisation using the ROC analysis approach provided a sensitivity of 76.5% (95% C.I. = 73.8%-79.0%) and a specificity of 77.5% (95% C.I. = 70.7%-83.3%). The ROC AUC values were moderately low with the largest being 0.769 (95% C.I. = 0.737-0.802). Conclusions: The concordance of the Chinese version of the SWEMWBS has been examined using PHQ-9 as the benchmarking comparator. The results indicate moderate sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- values.
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.