4.5 Article

Validation of the Polish version of WHO-5 as a screening instrument for depression in adults with diabetes

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 159, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107970

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus; Type 2; Depression; World Health Organization; Quality of life; Psychometrics; Sensitivity and specificity

Funding

  1. AIMH
  2. Eli Lilly company
  3. Sanofi company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The aim of this study was to validate and report the factorial analysis of the World Health Organization's 5-itemWell-being Index (WHO-5) among outpatients with type 2 diabetes. We investigated the psychometric properties of the WHO-5 and its suitability for identifying potential depressive symptoms in Polish adults with diabetes. Methods: Participants were randomly chosen among Polish diabetes outpatients and invited to participate in the cross-sectional study (N = 216). Participants completed the Polish version of the WHO-5, Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire. Results: Factor analyses identified the one-factor structure of the Polish version of the WHO-5. The internal consistency of the Polish version of the WHO-5 is satisfying. With regard to convergent validity, there were significant negative associations between the WHO-5 and PAID, the PHQ-9, HbA1c and the amount of medical complications. The AUC indicates that the WHO-5 is an effective measure for identifying depressive symptoms. The optimal cut off values of <= 12 yielded the best sensitivity/specificity trade-off for identifying depression among people with diabetes. Conclusions: The Polish version of the WHO-5 is a reliable, valid outcome measure for outpatients with type 2 diabetes and can be a useful instrument for screening for depression in people with diabetes. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available