Assessment of Population Well-Being With the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ): Development and Usability Study

Abstract

Background Existing mental health assessment tools provide an incomplete picture of symptom experience and create ambiguity, bias, and inconsistency in mental health outcomes. Furthermore, by focusing on disorders and dysfunction, they do not allow a view of mental health and well-being across a general population. Objective This study aims to demonstrate the outcomes and validity of a new web-based assessment tool called the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which is designed for the general population. The MHQ covers the complete breadth of clinical mental health symptoms and also captures healthy mental functioning to provide a complete profile of an individual’s mental health from clinical to thriving. Methods The MHQ was developed based on the coding of symptoms assessed in 126 existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)–based psychiatric assessment tools as well as neuroscientific criteria laid out by Research Domain Criteria to arrive at a comprehensive set of semantically distinct mental health symptoms and attributes. These were formulated into questions on a 9-point scale with both positive and negative dimensions and developed into a web-based tool that takes approximately 14 min to complete. As its output, the assessment provides overall MHQ scores as well as subscores for 6 categories of mental health that distinguish clinical and at-risk groups from healthy populations based on a nonlinear scoring algorithm. MHQ items were also mapped to the DSM fifth edition (DSM-5), and clinical diagnostic criteria for 10 disorders were applied to the MHQ outcomes to cross-validate scores labeled at-risk and clinical. Initial data were collected from 1665 adult respondents to test the tool. Results Scores in the normal healthy range spanned from 0 to 200 for the overall MHQ, with an average score of approximately 100 (SD 45), and from 0 to 100 with average scores between 48 (SD 21) and 55 (SD 22) for subscores in each of the 6 mental health subcategories. Overall, 2.46% (41/1665) and 13.09% (218/1665) of respondents were classified as clinical and at-risk, respectively, with negative scores. Validation against DSM-5 diagnostic criteria showed that 95% (39/41) of those designated clinical were positive for at least one DSM-5–based disorder, whereas only 1.14% (16/1406) of those with a positive MHQ score met the diagnostic criteria for a mental health disorder. Conclusions The MHQ provides a fast, easy, and comprehensive way to assess population mental health and well-being; identify at-risk individuals and subgroups; and provide diagnosis-relevant information across 10 disorders.

Psychological Screening and Tracking of Athletes and Digital Mental Health Solutions in a Hybrid Model of Care: Mini Review

“…However, the limitations are low adherence rates and questionable long-term efficacy in real-world settings. A collaborative effort to confront digital and system challenges within the general population will be required to "realize the vital goals of mental health prevention and support by providing a means to measure and track population mental health" [24]. A road map, a communication tool that articulates the strategic thinking of the goal and plan, is required to strengthen global mental health systems to tackle the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic [25].…”

“…Answering the call for a generalized prevention and intervention tool [50], a first-line screening tool called the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ) was developed to provide for the individual perspective (a profile of mental health challenges and positive well-being) [24]. It screens for concerns and abilities across a results profile while developing a complete picture and unbiased insights of reported symptoms and functions.…”

“…The MHQ is useful in identifying people who do not qualify for a particular disorder yet need help because of a large number of severe clinical symptoms (from an anonymous screening that provides a score and full individual report that encourages honest self-reporting). Validity was suggested from demonstration of a close alignment between MHQ scores and the degree to which people meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria as well as alignment with known epidemiological estimates along with various dimensions including annual prevalence rates of mental health disorders and age and gender difference findings [24]. However, the MHQ is not known to have been tested by others for its validity.…”

“…The MHQ is generally useful to target subsyndromal symptoms before it becomes distress or impairment [24]. There is expected to be a greater demand for evidence-based mental health interventions as cultural change prompts more positive perceptions of help-seeking [35].…”

Coronavirus Disease-2019 and Mental Health

“…It is safe enough since it is a web-based assessment tool. It is also fast, easy, and comprehensive toll based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 [16]. However, DSM-5 is still being the most common and standard assessment tool for mental disorder used at present [17].…”