A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY BMC Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0
Wei Zhang, Kieran Balloo, Anesa Hosein, Emma Medland
{"title":"A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being.","authors":"Wei Zhang, Kieran Balloo, Anesa Hosein, Emma Medland","doi":"10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to identify the conceptualisation of overall well-being used for well-being assessment through a review of the characteristics and key components and/or dimensions of well-being scales as presented in current literature. Scopus and Web of Science were searched, and thematic analysis was conducted inductively to analyse the identified components within scales, as well as the types of well-being these scales measure. 107 peer-reviewed articles from 2003 to 2022 were included, and 69 well-being scales were identified covering nine areas of well-being. Four final themes were identified as the foundational dimensions of overall well-being: hedonic; eudaimonic; physical health; and generic happiness. Notably, these 69 scales are mainly validated and adopted in the Western context. '4 + N' frameworks of overall well-being are recommended for assessing overall well-being. This review provides researchers with a synthesis of what types of well-being have been measured and which measures have been used to assess these types of well-being for which research participants. Non-Western-based well-being research is called for that incorporates a broader range of research participants and cultural contexts in contributing to a more inclusive understanding of well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to identify the conceptualisation of overall well-being used for well-being assessment through a review of the characteristics and key components and/or dimensions of well-being scales as presented in current literature. Scopus and Web of Science were searched, and thematic analysis was conducted inductively to analyse the identified components within scales, as well as the types of well-being these scales measure. 107 peer-reviewed articles from 2003 to 2022 were included, and 69 well-being scales were identified covering nine areas of well-being. Four final themes were identified as the foundational dimensions of overall well-being: hedonic; eudaimonic; physical health; and generic happiness. Notably, these 69 scales are mainly validated and adopted in the Western context. '4 + N' frameworks of overall well-being are recommended for assessing overall well-being. This review provides researchers with a synthesis of what types of well-being have been measured and which measures have been used to assess these types of well-being for which research participants. Non-Western-based well-being research is called for that incorporates a broader range of research participants and cultural contexts in contributing to a more inclusive understanding of well-being.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
福祉衡量标准的范围审查:整体福祉的概念化和量表。
本研究旨在通过对当前文献中幸福感量表的特点、关键组成部分和/或维度的回顾,确定用于幸福感评估的总体幸福感概念。研究人员检索了 Scopus 和 Web of Science,并进行了归纳式主题分析,以分析量表中已确定的组成部分以及这些量表所衡量的幸福感类型。共收录了 2003 年至 2022 年的 107 篇同行评议文章,并确定了 69 个幸福感量表,涵盖幸福感的九个领域。最后确定了四个主题作为总体幸福感的基本维度:享乐、幸福、身体健康和一般幸福。值得注意的是,这 69 个量表主要是在西方背景下验证和采用的。建议采用 "4 + N "整体幸福感框架来评估整体幸福感。本综述为研究人员提供了一份综述,介绍了哪些类型的幸福感已被测量,以及哪些测量方法已被用于评估哪些研究参与者的这些类型的幸福感。呼吁开展非西方福祉研究,纳入更广泛的研究参与者和文化背景,以促进对福祉的更全面理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
期刊最新文献
Resilience and hopelessness mediate the relationship between benevolent childhood experiences and life satisfaction: evidence from a cross-cultural study. Chinese translation and validation of the Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI) for medical college students. The impact of co-occurring chronic pain and mental health symptoms on adolescent functioning, a cross-sectional survey. The hidden cost of abusive supervision: rudeness, sabotage, and ethics. The impact of noise-induced hearing loss on individual job performance: exploring the role of aggression and work-related quality of life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1