ArticleAnnals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine2010
Introduction to special series: The great debate--evaluating the health implications of positive psychology.
Article in Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How happy is healthy enough? Uncovering the happiness threshold for global non-communicable disease prevention.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, investigators have focused increased attention on positive psychology constructs and their associations with health outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and adaptation to illness. The database regarding some of these concepts and models has grown appreciably, but work in this area has been subject to controversy. PURPOSE: This special series of papers offers contrasting perspectives regarding research on positive psychology and health. Both proponents and critics were invited to review recent developments concerning a number of positive constructs that have been evaluated in the oncology literature and in health research, more generally.
methodsPapers are presented in the format of a debate. Significant advances are reviewed by one set of investigators, Drs, Lisa G. Aspinwall and Richard G. Tedeschi, while shortcomings and concerns are highlighted by another set of investigators, Drs. James C. Coyne and Howard Tennen. Each of these review papers is followed by a rebuttal by the opposing side. A commentary on the exchange is provided by Dr. Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin.
resultsThese papers address a range of important considerations regarding conceptualization of constructs, methodological rigor, dissemination of findings, and implications for practice.
conclusionThe critiques and recommendations offered in these papers may help inform future efforts in this area, as the field continues to evolve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.