4.3 Article

Psychometric Properties of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index among Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three Countries

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610106

关键词

COVID-19; cross-cultural; item response theory; measurement invariance; mental health; nursing staff; pandemics; public health; validation; WHO-5 Well-Being Index

资金

  1. Central Norway Regional Health Authority [90327500/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to validate the WHO-5 Well-Being Index in a sample of nurses. The results showed that the scale demonstrated good reliability and validity in three countries and can be used to measure nurses' well-being during a pandemic.
Nurses' well-being has been increasingly recognised due to the ongoing pandemic. However, no validation scales measuring nurses' well-being currently exist. Thus, we aimed to validate the WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in a sample of nurses. A cross-sectional multinational study was conducted, and a total of 678 nurses who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain (36.9%), Chile (40.0%) and Norway (23.1%) participated in this study. The nurses completed the WHO-5, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2) and three questions about the quality of life (QoL). The WHO-5 demonstrated good reliability and validity in the three countries. Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.81 to 0.90. High correlations were found between the WHO-5 and the psychological well-being dimension of QoL, and negative correlations between the WHO-5 and PHQ-2. The unidimensional scale structure was confirmed in all the countries, explaining more than 68% of the variance. The item response theory likelihood ratio model did not show discernible differences in the WHO-5 across the countries. To conclude, the WHO-5 is a psychometrically sound scale for measuring nurses' well-being during a pandemic. The scale showed strong construct validity for cross-cultural comparisons; however, more research is required with larger sample sizes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据