PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) is a commonly used scale of mental wellbeing focusing entirely on the positive aspect of mental health. It has been widely used in a broad range of clinical and research settings, including to evaluate if interventions, programmes or pilots improve wellbeing. We aimed to systematically review all interventions that used WEMWBS and evaluate which interventions are the most effective at improving wellbeing.
Eligible populations included children and adults, with no health or age restrictions. Any intervention study was eligible if the wellbeing outcome was measured using the 7 or 14-item WEMWBS scale assessed both pre- and post-intervention. We identified eligible intervention studies using three approaches: a database search (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyschInfo and Web of Science from January 2007 to present), grey literature search, and by issuing a call for evidence. Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean differences in the intervention group were used to summarise intervention effects on WEMWBS score.
We identified 223 interventions across 209 studies, with a total of 53,834 participants across all studies. Five main themes of interventions were synthesised: psychological (n = 80); social (n = 54); arts, culture and environment (n = 29); physical health promotion (n = 18); and other (n = 28). Psychological interventions based on resilience, wellbeing or self-management techniques had the strongest effect on wellbeing. A broad range of other interventions were effective at improving mental wellbeing, including other psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoeducation and mindfulness. Medium to strong effects were also seen for person-centred support/advice (social), arts-based, parenting (social) and social prescribing interventions. However, a major limitation of the evidence was that only 75 (36%) of studies included a control group.
WEMWBS has been widely used to assess wellbeing across a diverse range of interventions, settings and samples. Despite substantial heterogeneity in individual intervention design, delivery and groups targeted, results indicate that a broad range of intervention types can successfully improve wellbeing. Methodological changes, such as greater use of control groups in intervention evaluation, can help future researchers and policy makers further understand what works for mental wellbeing.
Eligible populations included children and adults, with no health or age restrictions. Any intervention study was eligible if the wellbeing outcome was measured using the 7 or 14-item WEMWBS scale assessed both pre- and post-intervention. We identified eligible intervention studies using three approaches: a database search (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyschInfo and Web of Science from January 2007 to present), grey literature search, and by issuing a call for evidence. Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean differences in the intervention group were used to summarise intervention effects on WEMWBS score.
We identified 223 interventions across 209 studies, with a total of 53,834 participants across all studies. Five main themes of interventions were synthesised: psychological (n = 80); social (n = 54); arts, culture and environment (n = 29); physical health promotion (n = 18); and other (n = 28). Psychological interventions based on resilience, wellbeing or self-management techniques had the strongest effect on wellbeing. A broad range of other interventions were effective at improving mental wellbeing, including other psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoeducation and mindfulness. Medium to strong effects were also seen for person-centred support/advice (social), arts-based, parenting (social) and social prescribing interventions. However, a major limitation of the evidence was that only 75 (36%) of studies included a control group.
WEMWBS has been widely used to assess wellbeing across a diverse range of interventions, settings and samples. Despite substantial heterogeneity in individual intervention design, delivery and groups targeted, results indicate that a broad range of intervention types can successfully improve wellbeing. Methodological changes, such as greater use of control groups in intervention evaluation, can help future researchers and policy makers further understand what works for mental wellbeing.
摘要：
背景：沃里克-爱丁堡精神健康量表（WEMWBS）是一种常用的精神健康量表，完全专注于心理健康的积极方面。它已广泛用于广泛的临床和研究环境，包括评估干预措施，计划或飞行员改善福祉。我们旨在系统地审查所有使用WEMWBS的干预措施，并评估哪些干预措施在改善福祉方面最有效。
方法：符合条件的人群包括儿童和成人，没有健康或年龄限制。如果使用干预前和干预后评估的7项或14项WEMWBS量表来测量健康结果，则任何干预研究都是合格的。我们使用三种方法确定了合格的干预研究：数据库搜索(Medline，EMBASE,CINAHL,PyschInfo和WebofScience从2007年1月至今)，灰色文献检索,并发出证据要求。使用叙事综合和干预组标准化平均差异的随机效应荟萃分析来总结干预对WEMWBS评分的影响。
结果：我们在209项研究中确定了223项干预措施，所有研究共有53,834名参与者。综合了五个主要干预主题：心理（n=80）；社会（n=54）；艺术，文化和环境(n=29)；促进身体健康(n=18)；和其他(n=28)。基于韧性的心理干预，福祉或自我管理技术对福祉的影响最大。广泛的其他干预措施在改善心理健康方面是有效的，包括其他心理干预，如认知行为疗法，心理教育和正念。以人为中心的支持/建议(社会)也有中等到强烈的影响，以艺术为基础，育儿(社会)和社会处方干预。然而,证据的一个主要局限性在于,只有75项(36%)研究纳入了对照组.
结论：WEMWBS已广泛用于评估各种干预措施的健康状况，设置和样本。尽管个体干预设计存在很大的异质性，交付和目标群体，结果表明，广泛的干预类型可以成功地改善健康。方法的改变，例如在干预评估中更多地使用对照组，可以帮助未来的研究人员和政策制定者进一步了解什么对心理健康有效。
方法：符合条件的人群包括儿童和成人，没有健康或年龄限制。如果使用干预前和干预后评估的7项或14项WEMWBS量表来测量健康结果，则任何干预研究都是合格的。我们使用三种方法确定了合格的干预研究：数据库搜索(Medline，EMBASE,CINAHL,PyschInfo和WebofScience从2007年1月至今)，灰色文献检索,并发出证据要求。使用叙事综合和干预组标准化平均差异的随机效应荟萃分析来总结干预对WEMWBS评分的影响。
结果：我们在209项研究中确定了223项干预措施，所有研究共有53,834名参与者。综合了五个主要干预主题：心理（n=80）；社会（n=54）；艺术，文化和环境(n=29)；促进身体健康(n=18)；和其他(n=28)。基于韧性的心理干预，福祉或自我管理技术对福祉的影响最大。广泛的其他干预措施在改善心理健康方面是有效的，包括其他心理干预，如认知行为疗法，心理教育和正念。以人为中心的支持/建议(社会)也有中等到强烈的影响，以艺术为基础，育儿(社会)和社会处方干预。然而,证据的一个主要局限性在于,只有75项(36%)研究纳入了对照组.
结论：WEMWBS已广泛用于评估各种干预措施的健康状况，设置和样本。尽管个体干预设计存在很大的异质性，交付和目标群体，结果表明，广泛的干预类型可以成功地改善健康。方法的改变，例如在干预评估中更多地使用对照组，可以帮助未来的研究人员和政策制定者进一步了解什么对心理健康有效。
