MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398252512 · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-05814-z

Validation and optimal cut-off score of the World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5) as a screening tool for depression among patients with schizophrenia

2024· article· en· W4398252512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Feten Fekih‐Romdhane, Fadila Al Mouzakzak, Ghinwa Abilmona, Oussama Dahdouh, Souheil Hallit

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Receiver operating characteristicContext (archaeology)Confirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologyPsychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryPsychometricsConstruct validityPredictive validityConcurrent validityPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleMedicinePsychosisStructural equation modelingInternal consistencyInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The utility of the World Health Organization Wellbeing Index (WHO-5) as rapid screening tool for depression has not yet been researched in the context of schizophrenia. The goals of this study were twofold: (1) to test the psychometric properties of the WHO-5 in a sample of Arabic-speaking patients with schizophrenia from Lebanon, with particular emphasis on validating the WHO-5 as a screening tool for wellbeing and depression in patients with schizophrenia; and (2) to determine the optimal cut-off point to identify schizophrenia patients with depression. METHODS: Chronic, remitted patients with schizophrenia took part in this cross-sectional study between August and October 2023 (n = 117; mean age of 57.86 ± 10.88 years and 63.3% males). The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) was included as index of validity. For the validation of the WHO-5 scale, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the original structure of the scale. To assess the discriminatory validity of the Arabic version of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression, we conducted a Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, taking the WHO-5 reversed score against the dichotomized CDSS score at a cut off value of 6. RESULTS: The results of CFA supported the originally proposed unidimensional structure of the measure, with good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.80), concurrent validity, and cross-sex measurement invariance. The WHO-5 showed a sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.7 in the detection of depression with a cut-off point of 9.5. The validity of the WHO-5 as a screening tool for depression was supported by the excellent discrimination AUC value of 0.838. Based on this WHO-5 cut-off value, 42.6% of the patients were screened as having a depression. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to the field by showing that the WHO-5 is a concise and convenient self-report measure for quickly screening and monitoring depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. It is therefore highly recommended to apply this cut-off point for screening and follow-up assessments. The current findings will hopefully encourage clinicians and researchers working in Arab settings, who are often confronted with significant time and resource constraints, to start using the WHO-5 to aid their efforts in mitigating depression in this vulnerable population and fostering research in this under-researched area.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207