Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T10:06:56.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is well-being? A scoping review of the conceptual and operational definitions of occupational well-being

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2023

Tara G. Bautista Open the ORCID record for Tara G. Bautista [Opens in a new window] ,
Gretchen Roman Open the ORCID record for Gretchen Roman [Opens in a new window] ,
Munziba Khan ,
Michele Lee ,
Sumeyra Sahbaz ,
Lunthita M. Duthely ,
Alexa Knippenberg ,
Miracle A. Macias-Burgos ,
Alec Davidson  and
Carolina Scaramutti
...Show all authors
Tara G. Bautista*
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Gretchen Roman
Affiliation:
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
Munziba Khan
Affiliation:
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
Michele Lee
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Sumeyra Sahbaz
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin, OK, USA
Lunthita M. Duthely
Affiliation:
University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
Alexa Knippenberg
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Miracle A. Macias-Burgos
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Alec Davidson
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Carolina Scaramutti
Affiliation:
University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
Janice Gabrilove
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Susan Pusek
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, St. Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Darshan Mehta
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Miriam A. Bredella
Affiliation:
New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
*
Corresponding author: T. Bautista, PhD; Email: tara.bautista@nau.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Well-being is a multifaceted construct that is used across disciplines to portray a state of wellness, health, and happiness. While aspects of well-being seem universal, how it is depicted in the literature has substantial variation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify conceptual and operational definitions of well-being within the field of occupational health. Broad search terms were used related to well-being and scale/assessment. Inclusion criteria were (1) peer-reviewed articles, (2) published in English, (3) included a measure of well-being in the methods and results section of the article, and (4) empirical paper. The searches resulted in 4394 articles, 3733 articles were excluded by reading the abstract, 661 articles received a full review, and 273 articles were excluded after a full review, leaving 388 articles that met our inclusion criteria and were used to extract well-being assessment information. Many studies did not define well-being or link their conceptual definition to the operational assessment tool being used. There were 158 assessments of well-being represented across studies. Results highlight the lack of a consistent definitions of well-being and standardized measurements.

Keywords

Well-beingoccupational healthworkforceassessmentreview
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , 2023 , e227
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Clinical and Translational Science

Introduction

Well-being is a multifaceted construct and while there is no consensus on a single definition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes well-being as “the presence of positive emotions and moods, the absence of negative emotions, satisfaction with life, fulfillment, and positive functioning [Reference Chutiyami, Cheong and Salihu1].” The interest in studying well-being within health research has drastically increased over the last 20 years. Using the PubMed database, there were 1,361 results using the term well-being in 2003, in 2022 there were 22,536 results for the term well-being. While use of the term has increased, we have not seen the same attention applied to defining the term comparably across fields of study. Colloquially, well-being is often defined or discussed as a synonym for wellness, health, happiness, and satisfaction. Within the academic community, we define well-being as a multifaceted construct with definitions that vary by domain. For example, the definition of emotional well-being will differ from the definition of physical well-being or economic well-being. Although aspects of well-being seem universal, how it is depicted in the literature has substantial variation in definition and even greater variation in how it is measured.

Specifically, within the field of occupational health and well-being, we have also seen an increase in the interest in measuring and improving workers’ well-being. In 2011, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health within the CDC expanded the traditional delivery of occupational safety and health by integrating well-being [2]. Total Worker Health® was introduced as a strategy that combines health protection with health promotion to prevent worker injury and advance well-being [Reference Chari, Chang and Sauter3]. The recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought even greater attention to the importance of worker well-being. Much concern has been specifically expressed about the mental health and well-being of healthcare professionals during and at the height of the pandemic [Reference Chutiyami, Cheong and Salihu1]. However, psychological distress from the pandemic on the overall workforce has led to greater turnover intention [Reference Poon, Lin, Griffiths, Yong, Seah and Liaw4], resignation [Reference Jiskrova5], and ultimately, labor shortages. So much so that in 2022, the U.S. Surgeon General released a new framework for mental health and well-being in the workplace, stating that it is “a critical priority for public health [6].” Protection from harm, connection and community, work-life harmony, mattering at work, and opportunities for growth were the five essentials that were highlighted to guide leaders in developing an organizational culture that supports worker mental health and well-being [6]. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to identify conceptual definitions and operational assessments of well-being within the field of occupational health.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching PubMed September 2022 and April 2023 using the search terms “well-being,” “occupational OR workplace,” and “scale.” The inclusion criteria were (1) scholarly journal articles, (2) published in English, (3) measured well-being, and (4) empirical papers. The search was not limited by date of publication. From this search, 4394 articles were identified. After reviewing the abstracts, 3733 articles were removed for not having a well-being measure, leaving 661 articles for full review. Four reviewers conducted the screening using pre-established inclusion criteria. In the first screening, reviewers independently screened the abstracts for inclusion criteria. If one reviewer indicated an article as relevant at the initial screening phase, the article proceeded to the second screening to ensure inclusivity. In the second screening, reviewers independently screened the full text of articles to ensure the articles met the inclusion criteria. Following a full review of the articles, 273 papers were removed, leaving 388 articles included in the data extraction for the present study.

Data Extraction

The following information was extracted from the 388 articles that met the inclusion criteria: (a) Well-being assessment citation, (b) name of the well-being assessment, (c) items and rating, (d) reliability and validity, (e) samples/populations from occupational health and well-being studies, (f) assessment limitations noted in the occupational health and well-being studies, and (g) other well-being assessments used in combination with this assessment. This information was condensed by assessment so that the same assessment was only listed once. This information is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Well-being assessments used in the occupational health and well-being literature

Results

There was a total of 158 well-being assessments that resulted from our scoping review of the occupational health and well-being literature. The full table is available as an online supplemental file. A condensed version of the table with the most relevant well-being assessments (N = 21) can be found in Table 1. Of the information extracted, three sections are highlighted in this section (1) reliability and validity of the well-being assessments, (2) the samples/populations represented within the occupational health and well-being articles included in this review, and (3) limitations of the assessments noted in the included studies.

Reliability and Validity

The most common psychometric information reported was internal consistency or reliability represented by Cronbach’s alpha (α). There were a few single-item measures and items rated as yes/no, for which reliability cannot be tested. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is meant to provide a measure of the internal consistency. The coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, with a value of 0.70 or higher indicating good consistency and reliability [Reference Tavakol and Dennick7]. While reliability should be determined before validity, reliability alone does not tell us if the measure is also valid. We found that few assessments reported the validity and for those that did, the type of validity varied (i.e., predictive, discriminant, convergent, etc.). Therefore, we have little information about whether the assessments that claim to measure well-being are valid measures of the construct.

Populations

There were a variety of samples and populations represented across assessments. While we limited our study to only articles published in English, there were a range of countries represented across studies. We also had a variety of employment types reported across studies, with the majority being from healthcare or healthcare-related fields.

Limitations

We extracted the author-reported limitations of their study using the well-being assessment. The listed limitations were specific to the potential impact of the assessment of well-being. The most frequent limitations mentioned were the lack of generalizability of the well-being findings to other populations and small sample sizes. These are both subjective to the author’s perspective, but we believe these are worth considering when choosing a well-being assessment appropriate for each study.

Discussion

The overall lack of attention to the measurement and assessment of well-being and use of inconsistent types of measures of well-being in published articles is concerning. Most studies resulting from our search did not properly report how they assessed well-being. A deficiency in the use of a standard definition may, in part, explain the heterogeneity of well-being measurements that were reported. Utilization of a standardized definition and shared conceptual framework may help researchers develop strong measurements that accurately depict and report well-being.

Populations Represented in Occupational Health and Well-Being Literature

A unique feature of our scoping review was the extraction of information related to the samples and populations that have been included when measuring occupation/workplace well-being. We purposely allowed for a wide variation in populations to gather information regarding international assessments of well-being, but we were limited by only being able to review studies published in (or translated to) English. At first glance, we did not notice a difference in how well-being was assessed between cultures, but future studies may be able to use the data we extracted and presented in Table 1 to perform a more formal analysis to assess potential differences in well-being assessments between cultures.

Recommendations for Assessing Well-Being

Based on the extensive review of over 300 articles, we have developed three recommendations for researchers who want to improve their well-being assessment. First, we were surprised at the number of articles that had to be excluded following a full review because they did not actually measure well-being despite discussing well-being in the introduction sections and having concluding remarks in their discussion sections. We recommend that authors do not mention well-being unless they have measured it and if they use a composite of measures, we recommend they explain how the composite operationalizes well-being. Second, be as precise as possible in your conceptual definition of well-being. We saw multiple articles that used a broad conceptual definition of well-being, but then a specific and narrow operational definition or assessment tool. We recommended researchers introduce a specific definition of well-being (e.g., economic, emotional, physical, spiritual) in their introduction section that will help the readers understand which domain of well-being is being assessed. We recommend using subscales or focused scales when measuring specific domains of well-being, such as emotional well-being. We do not recommend concluding emotional well-being based on an overall well-being assessment. We suggest that the term well-being only be used when multiple constructs are used together to assess an overall composition of well-being, beyond what can be captured through a single aspect of well-being. It is clear across conceptual definitions that well-being is a multifaceted construct that cannot be captured through a single dimension. When using a single construct to assess well-being, we suggest defining the individual construct rather than using the single construct to define well-being. For example, if a researcher is measuring quality of life, happiness, and health, those combined measures could be used to infer well-being, or they may be using a multidimensional well-being scale. But, if the study is only measuring quality of life, then the researcher should only infer quality of life, not well-being. Across fields, it is imperative to procure validated instruments that accurately measure well-being and reflect participants’ data accurately.

Limitations and Future Research

The results of the present study should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. Due to the overwhelming large scope of research that could be included with the simple term “well-being,” we are not able to present the full body of research in a single scoping review, therefore we decided to focus specifically on occupational well-being. The present study was limited to empirical studies indexed in PubMed and published in the English language only.

We would also like to acknowledge the potential issue of false positive and false negative when searching for articles that measure well-being. There may have been false positive results by including articles that do not directly measure well-being, but conclude well-being based on proxy measures of mental and physical health. These articles are falsely included because the authors use the term “well-being” and therefore the article was found during our searches. Additionally, there may have been false negative results by missing articles that did not use the term “well-being” to describe their results, but based on their measure, we would have defined their construct as measure of well-being. Because the authors did not use the term well-being, their article was not a result of our searches.

There were many articles that discussed well-being in the introduction and discussion but did not measure well-being in the methods and results. For the purposes of this review, these papers were excluded as they did not provide adequate explanation of the measurement of the well-being construct. Future research may be interested in looking at this issue more specifically and what it means for the field to conclude well-being or make implications for well-being without measuring the construct directly.

Selecting the appropriate assessment of well-being for each study is a challenge and there is currently no standard process for selecting the best assessment tool. This is a promising future avenue of work for researchers interested in creating a flow chart to assist researchers in finding an assessment that fits their study aims and methods. There are currently online repositories hosted by groups such as The University of Connecticut (UConn) M3EWB (Mechanisms Underlying Mind-Body Interventions and Measurement of Emotional Well-Being) Network that allows researchers to find assessments for specific types of well-being. For example, researchers can search these repositories for an emotional well-being assessment for children. These repositories, if maintained, can be an excellent tool for managing the most reliable and valid assessments in the field. We believe the table available as a supplement file and the condensed table presented in this paper are also useful tools for researchers to use to identify a well-being assessment tool that fits the needs of their study. These tables may also be used for future analyses to search for patterns and gaps in current measurement. For example, someone may use these tables to see if there are common limitations across assessments or the most common combination of well-being assessments or look for missing populations and use existing assessments within those populations.

There is a need to clearly define and differentiate the term well-being from other constructs to create measures that adequately capture the importance of the term and its antecedents. Assessing if and how well-being differs by cultures and sample characteristics, such as age, education, race and ethnicity, and clinical profile (e.g., disease/disorder, problem severity, comorbidity), could provide valuable insights to improve translational science.

Conclusion

The current review highlighted the inconsistency of research examining the measurement of well-being. Additional research is needed to develop rigorous measurements of well-being that can be used across study populations and adequately capture the multiple dimensions of well-being. There is a need to provide consistent definitions and precise language when inferring well-being from results.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.648.

Funding statement

This project was supported by The University of Rochester Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration as the coordinating center for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health; U24TR002260 and KL2TR002542. Individual authors would also like to acknowledge their time supported by other mechanisms: R34DA057150 (LMD), P30AI073961(LMD). R25AT010664 (TGB).

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Footnotes

†

These two authors contributed equally to this work and shared first authorship

References

Chutiyami, M, Cheong, AM, Salihu, D, et al. COVID-19 pandemic and overall mental health of healthcare professionals globally: a meta-review of systematic reviews. Front Psychiatry. 2022;12:2600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
What is Total Worker Health?. 2020. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/twh/totalhealth.html (Accessed April 1, 2023).Google Scholar
Chari, R, Chang, C-C, Sauter, SL, et al. Expanding the paradigm of occupational safety and health a new framework for worker well-being. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(7):589–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poon, Y-SR, Lin, YP, Griffiths, P, Yong, KK, Seah, B, Liaw, SY. A global overview of healthcare workers’ turnover intention amid COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review with future directions. Hum Resour Health. 2022;20(1):1–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Jiskrova, GK. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the workforce: from psychological distress to the great resignation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76(6):525–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General OotS. The US Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health & Well-Being .  Washington, DC: US Public Health Service, 2022.Google Scholar
Tavakol, M, Dennick, R. Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Tibblin, G, Tibblin, B, Peciva, S, Kullman, S, Svärdsudd, K. The Göteborg quality of life instrument"--an assessment of well-being and symptoms among men born 1913 and 1923. Methods and validity. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1990;1:33–38.Google Scholar
Håkansson, C, Eklund, M, Lidfeldt, J, Nerbrand, C, Samsioe, G, Nilsson, PM. Well-being and occupational roles among middle-aged women. Work. 2005;24(4):341–351.Google ScholarPubMed
Cederlund, R, Iwarsson, S, Lundborg, G. Quality of life in Swedish workers exposed to hand-arm vibration. Occup Ther Int. 2007;14(3):156–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyrbye, LN, Satele, D, Sloan, J, Shanafelt, TD. Utility of a brief screening tool to identify physicians in distress. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(3):421–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddimba, AC, Bennett, MM, Fresnedo, M, Ledbetter, TG, Warren, AM. Resilience, well-being, and empathy among private practice physicians and advanced practice providers in Texas: a structural equation model study. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021;5(5):928–945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell-Sills, L, Stein, MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20(6):1019–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connor, KM, Davidson, JR. Development of a new resilience scale: the connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brock, C, Salinsky, J. Empathy: an essential skill for understanding the physician-patient relationship in clinical practice. Fam Med. 1993;25(4):245–248.Google ScholarPubMed
Dyrbye, LN, Szydlo, DW, Downing, SM, Sloan, JA, Shanafelt, TD. Development and preliminary psychometric properties of a well-being index for medical students. BMC Medil Educ. 2010;10(1):1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Forycka, J, Pawłowicz-Szlarska, E, Burczyńska, A, Cegielska, N, Harendarz, K, Nowicki, M. Polish medical students facing the pandemic—Assessment of resilience, well-being and burnout in the COVID-19 era. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0261652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, J, Kern, ML. The PERMA-profiler: a brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. Int J Wellbeing. 2016;6(3):1–48. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C-C, Watanabe, K, Kawakami, N. The associations between job strain, workplace PERMA profiler, and work engagement. J Occup Environ Med. 2022;64(5):409–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimomitsu, T. The Final Development of the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire Mainly Used for Assessment of the Individuals. Ministry of Labour Sponsored Grant for the Prevention of Work-related Illness: The 1999 Report. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Medical College, 2000:126–164.Google Scholar
Shimazu, A, Schaufeli, W, Kosugi, S, et al. Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Appl Psychol. 2008;57(3):510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, AL, Cummins, RA, Mcpherson, W. An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the personal wellbeing index. Soc Indic Res. 2005;72(3):403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, AL, Chi, I, Cummins, RA, Lee, TM, Chou, K-L, Chung, LW. The SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) pandemic in Hong Kong: effects on the subjective wellbeing of elderly and younger people. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12(6):746–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. International Well Being Group: Personal Wellbeing Index. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University; 2004.Google Scholar
Cummins, RA, Eckersley, R, Pallant, J, Van Vugt, J, Misajon, R. Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: the Australian unity wellbeing index. Soc Indic Res. 2003;64(2):159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, LC, Lee, JS, Chung, JC, Lau, A, Woo, J, Kwok, TC. A randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of case management model for community dwelling older persons with mild dementia in Hong Kong. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25(4):395–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Migliorini, C, Sinclair, A, Brown, D, Tonge, B, New, P. A randomised control trial of an internet-based cognitive behaviour treatment for mood disorder in adults with chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(9):695–701.Google ScholarPubMed
Low, RS, Overall, NC, Chang, VT, Henderson, AM, Sibley, CG. Emotion regulation and psychological and physical health during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Emotion. 2021;21(8):1671–1690.Google ScholarPubMed
Jarosova, D, Gurkova, E, Ziakova, K, et al. Job satisfaction and subjective well-being among midwives: analysis of a multinational cross-sectional survey. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2017;62(2):180–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovibond, PF, Lovibond, SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335–343.Google ScholarPubMed
Migliorini, CE, Elfström, M, Tonge, BJ. Translation and Australian validation of the spinal cord lesion-related coping strategies and emotional wellbeing questionnaires. Spinal Cord. 2008;46(10):690–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chassany, O, Dimenäs, E, Dubois, D, Wu, A, Dupuy, H. The Psychological General Well-being Index (pgwbi) User Manual. Lyon, France: MAPI Research Institute; 2004.Google Scholar
Dagenais-Desmarais, V, Savoie, A. What is psychological well-being, really? A grassroots approach from the organizational sciences. J Happiness Stud. 2012;13(4):659–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, H, Lalloo, R, Evans, JL, et al. An exploratory study of perfectionism, professional factors and psychological well-being of dentistry academics. Aust Dent J. 2021;66(2):175–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medzo-M’Engone, J, Ntsame Sima, M. Psychometric properties of the psychological well-being at work scale in Gabonese public administration. J Evid -Based Soc Work. 2021;18(1):101–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, KG, Richardson, CM, Tueller, S. The short form of the revised almost perfect scale. J Pers Assess. 2014;96(3):368–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, RM, Sieber, WJ, Ganiats, TG. The quality of well-being scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health. 1997;12(6):783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, RM, Anderson, JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res. 1988;23(2):203–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Eskridge, SL, Dougherty, AL, Watrous, JR, et al. Prosthesis satisfaction and quality of life in US service members with combat-related major lower-limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2022;46(1):68–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wingler, D, Hector, R. Demonstrating the effect of the built environment on staff health-related quality of life in ambulatory care environments. HERD. 2015;8(4):25–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Ryff, CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(6):1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palma-Candia, O, Hueso Montoro, C, Martí-García, C, Fernández-Alcántara, M, Campos-Calderón, CP, Montoya Juarez, R. Understanding the occupational adaptation process and well-being of older adults in magallanes (Chile): a qualitative study. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2019;16(19):3640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toledano-González, A, Labajos-Manzanares, T, Romero-Ayuso, D. Well-being, self-efficacy and independence in older adults: a randomized trial of occupational therapy. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;83:277–284.Google ScholarPubMed
Jang, MH, Gu, SY, Jeong, YM. Role of coping styles in the relationship between nurses’ work stress and well-being across career. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019;51(6):699–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sirigatti, S, Stefanile, C, Giannetti, E, Iani, L, Penzo, I, Mazzeschi, A. Assessment of factor structure of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales in italian adolescents. Bollettino Di Psicologia Applicata. 2009;259(56):30–50.Google Scholar
Schwartz, CE, Snook, E, Quaranto, B, Benedict, RH, Vollmer, T. Cognitive reserve and patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J. 2013;19(1):87–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, E, Emmons, RA, Larsen, RJ, Griffin, S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, JE Jr. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al Sayah, F, Ishaque, S, Lau, D, Johnson, JA. Health related quality of life measures in arabic speaking populations: a systematic review on cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(1):213–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickard, AS, Johnson, JA, Penn, A, Lau, F, Noseworthy, T. Replicability of SF-36 summary scores by the SF-12 in stroke patients. Stroke. 1999;30(6):1213–1217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnavita, N, Sestili, C, Mannocci, A, et al. Mental and physical well-being in oncology-hematology-unit personnel. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2018;73(6):375–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelsall, HL, McKenzie, DP, Forbes, AB, Roberts, MH, Urquhart, DM, Sim, MR. Pain-related musculoskeletal disorders, psychological comorbidity, and the relationship with physical and mental well-being in gulf war veterans. PAIN®. 2014;155(4):685–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almhdawi, KA, Obeidat, D, Kanaan, SF, et al. University professors’ mental and physical well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and distance teaching. Work. 2021;69(4):1153–1161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrick, J, Dyck, M, Bramston, P. Depression anxiety stress scale: is it valid for children and adolescents? J Clin Psychol. 2010;66(9):996–1007.Google ScholarPubMed
Almhdawi, KA, Kanaan, SF, Khader, Y, Al-Hourani, Z, Almomani, F, Nazzal, M. Study-related mental health symptoms and their correlates among allied health professions students. Work. 2018;61(3):391–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernon, H, Mior, S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–415.Google ScholarPubMed
Shaheen, AAM, Omar, MTA, Vernon, H. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the arabic version of neck disability index in patients with neck pain. Spine. 2013;38(10):E609–E615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Citko, A, Górski, S, Marcinowicz, L, Górska, A. Sedentary lifestyle and nonspecific low back pain in medical personnel in north-east Poland. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, KE, Paluch, AE, Blair, SN. Physical activity for health: what kind? How much? How intense? On top of what? Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32(1):349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helou, K, El Helou, N, Mahfouz, M, Mahfouz, Y, Salameh, P, Harmouche-Karaki, M. Validity and reliability of an adapted arabic version of the long international physical activity questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paloutzian, RF, Ellison, CW. Manual for the Spiritual Well-being Scale. Nyack, NY: Life Advance; 1991.Google Scholar
Duggleby, W, Cooper, D, Penz, K. Hope, self-efficacy, spiritual well-being and job satisfaction. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(11):2376–2385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malinakova, K, Kopcakova, J, Kolarcik, P, et al. The spiritual well-being scale: psychometric evaluation of the shortened version in Czech adolescents. J Relig Health. 2017;56(2):697–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zidkova, R, Glogar, P, Polackova Solcova, I, et al. Spirituality, religious attendance and health complaints in czech adolescents. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2020;17(7):2339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrides, KV, Furnham, A. Trait emotional intelligence: behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. Eur J Pers. 2003;17(1):39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamatopoulou, M, Galanis, P, Prezerakos, P. Psychometric properties of the Greek translation of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire-short form (TEIQue-SF). Pers Individ Differ. 2016;95:80–84.Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, Fradelos IV, Nikolaou, EC, Tsaras, E, Kontopoulou, K, Malli, L, F. Emotional intelligence and professional boredom among nursing personnel in greece. J Pers Med. 2021;11(8):750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, R, Sundberg, ND. Boredom proneness--the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess. 1986;50(1):4–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watanabe, K, Imamura, K, Inoue, A, et al. Measuring eudemonic well-being at work: a validation study for the 24-item the university of Tokyo occupational mental health (TOMH) well-being scale among Japanese workers. Ind Health. 2020;58(2):107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, R, Weich, S, Joseph, S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(63):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousselard, M, Steiler, D, Dutheil, F, et al. Validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) in French psychiatric and general populations. Psychiatry Res. 2016;245:282–290.Google ScholarPubMed
Carson, F, Malakellis, M, Walsh, J, Main, LC, Kremer, P. Examining the mental well-being of Australian sport coaches. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2019;16(23):4601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puig-Ribera, A, Bort-Roig, J, Giné-Garriga, M, et al. Impact of a workplace sit less, move moreprogram on efficiency-related outcomes of office employees. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartram, DJ, Sinclair, JM, Baldwin, DS. Further validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) in the UK veterinary profession: Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(2):379–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, SM, Treeby, MS, Olive, L, et al. Athlete experiences of shame and guilt: initial psychometric properties of the athletic perceptions of performance scale within junior elite cricketers. Front Psychol. 2021;12:581914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, CA, McKinley, C, Costantini, J, Murphy, S, Lysaght, R, Hart, BP. The big island model: resident experiences of a novel permanent supportive housing model for responding to rural homelessness. Health Soc Care Comm. 2022;30(6):e5047–e5061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stansfeld, SA, Shipley, MJ, Head, J, Fuhrer, R, Kivimaki, M. Work characteristics and personal social support as determinants of subjective well-being. PloS One. 2013;8(11):e81115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taggart, F, Friede, T, Weich, S, Clarke, A, Johnson, M, Stewart-Brown, S. Cross cultural evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS)-a mixed methods study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartram, DJ, Yadegarfar, G, Sinclair, JM, Baldwin, DS. Validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) as an overall indicator of population mental health and well-being in the UK veterinary profession. Vet J. 2011;187(3):397–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmad, W, Waqas, A, Saleem, HA, Naveed, S. Exploring diet, exercise, chronic illnesses, occupational stressors and mental well-being of healthcare professionals in Punjab, Pakistan. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Summers, EM, Morris, RC, Bhutani, GE, Rao, AS, Clarke, JC. A survey of psychological practitioner workplace well-being. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2021;28(2):438–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, SS, Lo, AW, Leung, TK, et al. Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the short Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale for patients with mental illness in Hong Kong. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2014;24(1):3–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Xu, H, Eley, R, Kynoch, K, Tuckett, A. Effects of mobile mindfulness on emergency department work stress: a randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med Australas. 2022;34(2):176–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, EG, Cardwell, JM. The big five personality traits, perfectionism and their association with mental health among UK students on professional degree programmes. BMC Psychol. 2020;8(1):1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Karpavičiūtė, S, Macijauskienė, J. The impact of arts activity on nursing staff well-being: an intervention in the workplace. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2016;13(4):435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colucci, E, Nadeau, S, Higgins, J, et al. COVID-19 lockdowns’ effects on the quality of life, perceived health and well-being of healthy elderly individuals: a longitudinal comparison of pre-lockdown and lockdown states of well-being. Arch Gerontol Geriat. 2022;99:104606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zigmond, AS, Snaith, RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cousins, R, Mackay, CJ, Clarke, SD, Kelly, C, Kelly, PJ, McCaig, RH. Management standards work-related stress in the UK: practical development. Work Stress. 2004;18(2):113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paykel, ES, Myers, JK, Lindenthal, JJ, Tanner, J. Suicidal feelings in the general population: a prevalence study. Br J Psychiatry. 1974;124(582):460–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, K, Kivlahan, DR, McDonell, MB, Fihn, SD, Bradley, KA, Project, ACQI. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(16):1789–1795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlosser, B. The assessment of subjective well-being and its relationship to the stress process. J Pers Assess. 1990;54(1-2):128–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, ND, McMahon, A, Prilleltensky, I, et al. Effectiveness of the fun for wellness web-based behavioral intervention to promote physical activity in adults with obesity (or overweight): randomized controlled trial. JMIR Form Res. 2020;4(2):e15919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, ND, Feltz, DL, Wolfe, EW. A confirmatory study of rating scale category effectiveness for the coaching efficacy scale. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(3):300–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, ND, Prilleltensky, I, Prilleltensky, O, McMahon, A, Dietz, S, Rubenstein, CL. Efficacy of the fun for wellness online intervention to promote multidimensional well-being: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Sci. 2017;18(8):984–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, G, Thomas, K, Smith, A. Stress and well-being of university staff: an investigation using the demands-resources-individual effects (DRIVE) model and well-being process questionnaire (WPQ). Psychology. 2017;8(12):1919–1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G, Smith, AP. Diagnostic validity of the anxiety and depression questions from the well-being process questionnaire. J Clin Translat Res. 2019;4(2):101–104.Google ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B, Prihodova, L, Walsh, G, Doyle, F, Doherty, S. What’s up doc? a national cross-sectional study of psychological wellbeing of hospital doctors in Ireland. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e018023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, M, McGee, H, Morgan, K, et al. One Island–One Lifestyle?. Health and Lifestyles in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; 2009.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D, Bridges, K, Duncan-Jones, P, Grayson, D. Detecting anxiety and depression in general medical settings. Br Med J. 1988;297(6653):897–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bech, P, Olsen, LR, Kjoller, M, Rasmussen, NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 mental health subscale and the WHO-five well-being scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12(2):85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, T, Zimmermann, J, Huffziger, S, et al. Measuring depression with a well-being index: further evidence for the validity of the WHO well-being index (WHO-5) as a measure of the severity of depression. J Affect Disord. 2014;156:240–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Topp, CW, Østergaard, SD, Søndergaard, S, Bech, P. The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farzanfar, R, Locke, SE, Heeren, TC, et al. Workplace telecommunications technology to identify mental health disorders and facilitate self-help or professional referrals. Am J Health Promot. 2011;25(3):207–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rao, N, Kemper, KJ. Online training in specific meditation practices improves gratitude, well-being, self-compassion, and confidence in providing compassionate care among health professionals. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2017;22(2):237–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mistretta, EG, Davis, MC, Mh, Temkit, Lorenz, C, Darby, B, Stonnington, CM. Resilience training for work-related stress among health care workers: results of a randomized clinical trial comparing in-person and smartphone-delivered interventions. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(6):559–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popova, ES, Hahn, J, Morris, B, etal, H. Exploring well-being: resilience, stress, and self-care in occupational therapy practitioners and students. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2023;43(2):159–169.Google ScholarPubMed
Abo-Ali, EA, Al-Rubaki, S, Lubbad, S, et al. Mental well-being and self-efficacy of healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk Manag Healthcare Policy. 2021;14:3167–3177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eiche, C, Birkholz, T, Jobst, E, Gall, C, Prottengeier, J. Well-being and PTSD in German emergency medical services-a nationwide cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0220154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjölund, BM, Mamhidir, AG, Engström, M. Pain prevalence among residents living in nursing homes and its association with quality of life and well-being. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35(4):1332–1341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biering-Sørensen, B, Iversen, HK, Frederiksen, IM, Vilhelmsen, JR, Biering-Sørensen, F. Treatment diary for botulinum toxin spasticity treatment: a pilot study. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017;40(2):175–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schougaard, LMV, de Thurah, A, Bech, P, Hjollund, NH, Christiansen, DH. Test-retest reliability and measurement error of the Danish WHO-5 well-being index in outpatients with epilepsy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaudequin, D, Can, AT, Jones, M, et al. Relationships between reduction in symptoms and restoration of function and wellbeing: outcomes of the oral Ketamine trial on suicidality (OKTOS). Psychiat Res. 2021;305:114212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahadır Ağce, Z, Ekici, G. Person-centred, occupation-based intervention program supported with problem-solving therapy for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freak-Poli, RL, Wolfe, R, Wong, E, Peeters, A. Change in well-being amongst participants in a four-month pedometer-based workplace health program. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolind, MI, Vinkler, S, Kristensen, T, Hansen, SV, Christensen, JR. Daily life coping—Helping stress-afflicted people manage everyday activities. Scand J Occup. 2023;30(2):170–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, C, Craigie, M, Slatyer, S, et al. Mindful self-care and resiliency (MSCR): protocol for a pilot trial of a brief mindfulness intervention to promote occupational resilience in rural general practitioners. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e021027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Addley, K, Burke, C, McQuillan, P. Impact of a direct access occupational physiotherapy treatment service. Occup Med. 2010;60(8):651–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuber, F, Seifried-Dübon, T, Tsarouha, E, et al. Feasibility, psychological outcomes and practical use of a stress-preventive leadership intervention in the workplace hospital: the results of a mixed-method phase-II study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(2):e049951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sayed Ahmed, HA, Mohamed, SF, Elotla, SF, Mostafa, M, Shah, J, Fouad, AM. Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the problem areas in diabetes scale in primary care. Front Public Health. 2022;10:843164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchand, A, Haines, VY, Dextras-Gauthier, J. Quantitative analysis of organizational culture in occupational health research: a theory-based validation in 30 workplaces of the organizational culture profile instrument. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, C, Hua, Y, Fu, H, et al. Effects of a mutual recovery intervention on mental health in depressed elderly community-dwelling adults: a pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vang, ML, Pihl-Thingvad, J, Shevlin, M. Identifying child protection workers at risk for secondary traumatization: a latent class analysis of the professional quality of life scale-5. J Trauma Stress. 2022;35(6):1608–1619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Kock, JH, Latham, HA, Cowden, RG, et al. Brief digital interventions to support the psychological well-being of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: 3-arm pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health. 2022;9(4):e34002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, K, Barton, GC. An exploration of physical activity and wellbeing in university employees. Perspect Public Health. 2016;136(3):152–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feicht, T, Wittmann, M, Jose, G, Mock, A, Von Hirschhausen, E, Esch, T. Evaluation of a seven-week web-based happiness training to improve psychological well-being, reduce stress, and enhance mindfulness and flourishing: a randomized controlled occupational health study. Evid-BASED Compl Alt. 2013;2013:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullough, ME, Emmons, RA, Tsang, J-A. The grateful disposition: a conceptual and empirical topography. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82(1):112–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, KD. The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self Identity. 2003;2(3):223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemper, KJ, Gascon, G, Mahan, JD. Two new scales for integrative medical education and research: confidence in providing calm, compassionate care scale (CCCS) and self-efficacy in providing non-drug therapies (SEND) to relieve common symptoms. Eur J Integr Med. 2015;7(4):389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, MF, Martin-Cook, K, Svetlik, DA, Saine, K, Foster, B, Fontaine, C. The quality of life in late-stage dementia (QUALID) scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2000;1(3):114–116.Google ScholarPubMed
Parker, GB, Hyett, MP. Measurement of well-being in the workplace: the development of the work well-being questionnaire. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2011;199(6):394–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Well-being assessments used in the occupational health and well-being literature

Supplementary material: File

Bautista et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 139.8 KB