Ecominds-effects-on-mental-wellbeing-evaluation-report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 <strong>Ecominds</strong> <strong>effects</strong> on mental wellbeingaspects of positive mental health 112 . The positivelyfocussed design of the WEMWBS enables its use bymental health promotion initiatives 113 . There is also ashort-form 7-item version of WEMWBS validated foruse (known as the SWEMWBS).The scale is scored by summing responses to eachitem answered on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 is‘none of the time’ and 5 is ‘all of the time’. For thelong form WEMWBS, the minimum scale score is 14and the maximum is 70 and for the SWEMWBS theminimum score is 7 and the maximum is 35, withhigher scores representing higher levels of wellbeing.Both forms of the WEMWBS have been validatedfor use in the UK with those aged 13 and above 114 .WEMWBS shows good content validity; Cronbach’salpha scores range from 0.89 to 0.91 and WEMWBSshows high correlations with other mental health andwell-being scales. Test-retest reliability at one weekwas high (0.83) and social desirability bias was loweror similar to that of other comparable scales 115 .The WEMWBS is not designed to identify individualswith exceptionally high or low levels of positive mentalhealth, so cut off points have not been developed 116 .However, a three-fold classification for WEMWBSscores has been used in research, where ‘poor’,‘average’ and ‘good’ mental wellbeing scores aredetermined by the mean and standard deviation (SD)of the data 117 . A ‘poor mental wellbeing’ is classedas more than one SD below the mean, ‘average’as within one SD of the mean and ‘good mentalwellbeing’ as one SD or more above the mean. Themean and SD used in this study were the nationalaverages taken from the most recent Scottish HealthSurvey in 2011 (M=49.9, SD 8.36) 118 .b) Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES)Self-esteem was measured using the one-page 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), whichprovides a one-dimensional measure of global selfesteem119 . Its validity is widely acknowledged, it iseasy to administer 120 and is considered to be the mostwidely-used and popular self-esteem measure inhealth psychology, psychotherapy and social scienceresearch and evaluation studies 121 .The instrument’s reliability (internal consistencyand test-retest) and face validity (convergent anddiscriminant) compares favourably with that ofmore elaborate measures 122 . Test-retest correlationstypically range from 0.82 to 0.88 and reportedCronbach’s alpha coefficients range from 0.77 to0.88 123 . The scale’s superior reliability and validityhas been demonstrated with many differentsample groups and its use has been validated foradolescents, adult and elderly populations. Thereare no universally recognised normative populationdatasets available for comparison purposes howeverdata from recent published research show meanscores of between 23-27 for adults with severemental illness 124 and 32.62 for US adults 125 . Thereare also no recommended discrete cut-off pointsrepresenting high and low self-esteem althoughseveral (non-peer reviewed) studies suggest thatscores between 15 and 25 are ‘normal’.RSES comprises 10 statements relating to overallfeelings of self-worth or self-acceptance and eachitem has four response choices ranging from stronglyagree (4) to strongly disagree (1). The scoring methodused in this research provided an overall singularscore ranging from 10 (poor self-esteem) to 40 (highself-esteem), thus higher scores represent higherself-esteem.c) Profile of Mood States (POMS)Mood is defined as “the subtle subjective state orfeelings of a person at any given moment” 126 . It refersto certain sets of subjective feelings (e.g. lively,grumpy, tense, relaxed, excited and weary) whichconsequentially occur in everyday life and provides areliable and valid indicator of the quality of the leisureexperience 127 .The instrument used to provide a ‘snapshot’ of moodstate and quantify any changes in mood factors wasthe Profile of Mood States (POMS) standardised30-item short-form one page version 128 . This is anadaptation of the original standard form, which was awidely applied self-report instrument, used to assesscurrent mood states and fluctuations. According to112 Parkinson 2006113 Parkinson 2006114 Stewart-Brown and Janmohamed, 2008; Stewart-Brown et al 2009;and Clarke et al 2011115 Parkinson 2006116 Health Scotland 2009117 Braunholtz et al 2007118 Rutherford et al 2012119 Rosenberg, 1965;120 Fox 2000121 Rosenberg 1989; Cusumano & Robinson 1992; Brown et al. 1995;Palmer 1995; Mactavish & Searle 1992; Torrey et al, 2000; Hughes etal, 2004; Kubany et al, 2004; and Sinclair et al, 2010.122 Pretty et al. 2003123 Blascovich & Tomaka 1993; Rosenberg 1986124 Torrey et al 2000; Hine et al 2011;125 Sinclair et al 2010126 Hull 1991127 McIntrye & Roggenbuck 1998128 McNair et al. 1971; 1992
An evaluation for Mind 33Biddle, the POMS is the dominant instrument formeasuring mood in studies examining the relationshipbetween mood states and exercise 129 and ishistorically the most frequently used tool 130 . A recentedition of the POMS bibliography 131 also reported thatmore than 2,900 articles have cited the instrument.This comprehensive inventory of POMS citationshighlights the range of settings of its application.The POMS consists of 30 adjectives which collectivelymeasure six identifiable mood factors: tensionanxiety,depression-dejection, anger-hostility, fatigueinertia,vigour-activity and confusion-bewilderment.Each adjective is rated using a 5-point Likert scalewhere a ‘0’ indicates ‘not at all’ and a ‘4’ indicates‘extremely’. Participants were instructed to completethe form according to how they felt at that moment.The six subscales yield a global estimate of affectivestate referred to as Total Mood Disturbance (TMD).The TMD score denotes an overall assessment ofemotional state and is calculated by summing the fivenegative subscales and subtracting the only positiveaffect subscale (vigour) 132 .Reliability and validity of the shortened edition of thePOMS was established by Grove and Prapavessis(1992). Internal consistency of the POMS inventoryranges from 0.84 to 0.95, and test-retest reliabilitycoefficients range from 0.65 to 0.74 133 . The validity ofthis version has been substantiated with Cronbach’salpha reliabilities for a sample of college students,ranging from 0.67 to 0.93 134 . In this study, withparticipants having been diagnosed as having severeand enduring mental health issues, mood sub-factorscores were calculated using outpatient norms.d) Perceived positivity scaleIn the shorter questionnaires used in the ‘Allprojects’ evaluation, as a proxy for measuringmental wellbeing, a one-off, simple question on‘positivity’ was included to allow participants to givetheir perceptio and asking the question both at thebeginning and at the end of participants’ involvementwith <strong>Ecominds</strong>, enabled comparative data to begathered and any changes in score to be calculated.3.6.2 Social inclusionSocial inclusion is another important theme of the<strong>Ecominds</strong> evaluation and four measures were usedto assess different elements of social inclusion. All ofthe measures used were developed (or adapted) bythe Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) andnef 135 as part of their ‘Wellbeing evaluation tools’ 136a) Social engagement and supportA social engagement and support measure (takenfrom the Social Wellbeing Module (SWB) of theCLES and nef wellbeing evaluation tool) was usedin the In-depth evaluation. Participants were askedhow much they agreed or disagreed with a seriesof four statements relating to different aspects ofsocial engagement and support. These statementsfrom the SWB are composed of a mix of customisedstatements and together with others adapted from theEuropean Social Survey (ESS) 137 .Responses were scored on a 5 point Likert scalewhere respondents were asked to choose from‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neutral’, ‘disagree’ and‘strongly disagree’, for each item and an overallsocial engagement and support score was thencalculated for each respondent (the sum of score foreach question divided by 4). Social engagement andsupport scores therefore range from a minimum of 1to a maximum of 5.b) Neighbourhood belongingA simple question on ‘neighbourhood belonging’allowed participants to give their perception ofhow much they feel they belong to their localneighbourhood or community. This question is takenfrom the ‘Social Wellbeing Depth’ questionnaire fromCLES and nef and was originally adapted from ‘ThePlace Survey’ 138 .Participants were asked both at the beginning andat the end of their involvement with the <strong>Ecominds</strong>project “How strongly do you feel you belong toyour immediate neighbourhood or community?” andcould respond on a 4 point scale from ‘very strongly’through to ‘not at all strongly’. This measure wasincluded in both the ‘All projects’ and the ‘In-depth’evaluations.129 Biddle 2000; Grove & Prapavessis 1992130 Yeung 1996131 McNair et al. 2003132 Cashel et al. 1996; McNair et al. 1992133 Hansen et al. 2001134 McNair et al. 1992135 www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/research/health-and-well-being/evaluatingwell-being136 Available at: www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/wellbeing_evaluation_tools.pdf137 The European Social Survey is an academically-driven social survey,designed to chart and explain the interaction between Europe’schanging institutions and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patternsof its diverse populations. See www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ formore information.138 The Place Survey collects the views of people on a range of issuesconcerning the place they live. Results are used to measure progresson National Indicators in the Local Performance Framework. See http://data.gov.uk/dataset/place_survey
Page 1: Ecominds e
Page 4 and 5: 2 Ecominds <strong
Page 12 and 13: 10 Ecominds <stron
Page 84 and 85:
82 Ecominds <stron
Page 86 and 87:
84 Ecominds <stron
Page 88 and 89:
86 Ecominds <stron
Page 90 and 91:
88 Ecominds <stron
Page 92 and 93:
90 Ecominds <stron
Page 94 and 95:
92 Ecominds <stron
Page 96 and 97:
94 Ecominds <stron
Page 98 and 99:
96 Ecominds <stron
Page 100 and 101:
98 Ecominds <stron
Page 102 and 103:
100 Ecominds <stro
Page 104 and 105:
102 Ecominds <stro
Page 106 and 107:
104 Ecominds <stro
Page 108 and 109:
106 Ecominds <stro
Page 110 and 111:
108 Ecominds <stro
Page 112:
8789_Ecomind_Project_Directory_v7.i
show all

Ecominds-effects-on-mental-wellbeing-evaluation-report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?