Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27388349›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2016

Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time.

Myles-Jay Linton, Paul Dieppe, Antonieta Medina-Lara

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 180 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
180citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

180 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Wellbeing trajectories and dementia risk among Mexican-origin adults living in the U.S.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

120 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Myles-Jay LintonHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2251-7727
Paul DieppeInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Antonieta Medina-LaraHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7325-8246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInvestigators within many disciplines are using measures of well-being, but it is not always clear what they are measuring, or which instruments may best meet their objectives. The aims of this review were to: systematically identify well-being instruments, explore the variety of well-being dimensions within instruments and describe how the production of instruments has developed over time.

designSystematic searches, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from 1993 to 2014 complemented by web searches and expert consultations through 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Instruments were selected for review if they were designed for adults (≥18 years old), generic (ie, non-disease or context specific) and available in an English version.

resultsA total of 99 measures of well-being were included, and 196 dimensions of well-being were identified within them. Dimensions clustered around 6 key thematic domains: mental well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, spiritual well-being, activities and functioning, and personal circumstances. Authors were rarely explicit about how existing theories had influenced the design of their tools; however, the 2 most referenced theories were Diener's model of subjective well-being and the WHO definition of health. The period between 1990 and 1999 produced the greatest number of newly developed well-being instruments (n=27). An illustration of the dimensions identified and the instruments that measure them is provided within a thematic framework of well-being.

conclusionsThis review provides researchers with an organised toolkit of instruments, dimensions and an accompanying glossary. The striking variability between instruments supports the need to pay close attention to what is being assessed under the umbrella of 'well-being' measurement.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingHealth StatusMental HealthSelf ReportSpiritualityHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultsGenericMeasuresQuality of lifeWell-being

Identifiers

PMID27388349
PMCPMC4947747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.