Background: The 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) is among the most widely used questionnaires assessing subjective psychological well-being. Since its first publication in 1998, the WHO-5 has been translated into more than 30 languages and has been used in research studies all over the world. We now provide a systematic review of the literature on the WHO-5. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for literature on the WHO-5 in PubMed and PsycINFO in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. In our review of the identified articles, we focused particularly on the following aspects: (1) the clinimetric validity of the WHO-5; (2) the responsiveness/sensitivity of the WHO-5 in controlled clinical trials; (3) the potential of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression, and (4) the applicability of the WHO-5 across study fields. Results: A total of 213 articles met the predefined criteria for inclusion in the review. The review demonstrated that the WHO-5 has high clinimetric validity, can be used as an outcome measure balancing the wanted and unwanted effects of treatments, is a sensitive and specific screening tool for depression and its applicability across study fields is very high. Conclusions: The WHO-5 is a short questionnaire consisting of 5 simple and non-invasive questions, which tap into the subjective well-being of the respondents. The scale has adequate validity both as a screening tool for depression and as an outcome measure in clinical trials and has been applied successfully across a wide range of study fields.

The cross-sectional study was performed in collaboration with the following clinicians (D = Denmark, F = Finland, I = Iceland, N = Norway, S = Sweden):

No abstract

The health status questionnaire Short-Form 36 (SF-36) includes subscales measuring both physical health and mental health. Psychometrically, the mental health subscale contains a mixture of mental symptoms and psychological well-being items, among other things, to prevent a ceiling effect when used in general population studies. Three of the mental health well-being items are also included in the WHO-Five well-being scale. In a Danish general population study, the mental health subscale was compared psychometrically with the WHO-Five in order to evaluate the ceiling effect. Tests for unidimensionality were used in the psychometric analyses, and the sensitivity of the scales in differentiating between changes in self-reported health over the past year has been tested. The results of the study on 9,542 respondents showed that, although the WHO-Five and the mental health subscale were found to be unidimensional, the WHO-Five had a significantly lower ceiling effect than the mental health subscale. The analysis identified the three depression symptoms in the mental health subscale as responsible for the ceiling effect. The WHO-Five was also found to be significantly superior to the mental health subscale in terms of its sensitivity in differentiating between those persons whose health had deteriorated over the past year and those whose health had not. In conclusion, the WHO-Five, which measures psychological well-being, reflects aspects other than just the absence of depressive symptoms.

No abstract

This review is based on a literature search made in January 2007 on request by the Danish National Board of Industrial Injuries. The search in PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO resulted in more than 1,000 publications. This was reduced to 14 after the titles, abstracts, and papers were evaluated by using the following criteria: 1) a longitudinal study, 2) exposure to work-related psychosocial factors, 3) the outcome a measure of depression, 4) relevant statistical estimates, and 5) nonduplicated publication. Of the 14 studies, seven used standardized diagnostic instruments as measures of depression, whereas the other seven studies used self-administered questionnaires. The authors found moderate evidence for a relation between the psychological demands of the job and the development of depression, with relative risks of approximately 2.0. However, indication of publication bias weakens the evidence. Social support at work was associated with a decrease in risk for future depression, as all four studies dealing with this exposure showed associations with relative risks of about 0.6. Even if this literature study has identified work-related psychosocial factors that in high-quality epidemiologic studies predict depression, studies are still needed that assess in more detail the duration and intensity of exposure necessary for developing depression.

When used in a sample of patients with different states of depression the MDI has an adequate internal and external validity.

Background: In a European trial in 8 countries, the subjective well-being of patients on alternative forms of treatment for insulin-dependent diabetes was compared using the 28-item WHO Well-Being Questionnaire, covering four dimensions of depression, anxiety, energy and positive well-being. The objective of the analysis reported here has been to identify the items of the WHO questionnaire which belong to an overall index of negative and positive well-being. Methods: Adult patients at 10 study centres in 8 countries who had been on insulin for at least 2 years were invited to participate in a randomised, cross-over trial to compare insulin pump treatment with injection therapy. At each phase, patients completed questions on well-being and general health. Internal validity of the well-being index was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha and Loevinger’s and Mokken’s homogeneity coefficients, as well as factor analysis. External validity was evaluated by comparisons with results of the general assessment questions and by the ability to discriminate between the alternative forms of treatment. Results: 358 patients had sufficient data for analysis. Ten items were found to constitute a valid index of well-being with respect to internal and external validity. Coefficients of homogeneity were acceptable and there was evidence for both concurrent and discriminant validity. Conclusions: The WHO (Ten) well-being index includes negative and positive aspects of well-being in a single uni-dimensional scale. Its advantage lies in its ability to show overall change along the continuum of well-being, thus facilitating comparisons between patient groups and treatments. It is not specific to diabetes, and therefore may be useful as a disease-independent index of well-being in a broad range of health care studies.