Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30572952›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2018

Quality appraisal of workers' wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol.

Rebecca J Jarden, Margaret Sandham, Richard J Siegert, Jane Koziol-McLain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Rebecca J JardenUniversity of Melbourne, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry St, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia. rebecca.jarden@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4643-7147
Margaret SandhamAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, 90 Akoranga Drive, Northcote, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand.
Richard J SiegertAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, 90 Akoranga Drive, Northcote, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand.
Jane Koziol-McLainAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, 90 Akoranga Drive, Northcote, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring wellbeing has never been so important. With the rapid growth of workplace wellbeing interventions, determining their effectiveness is not only good science but also good practice. A wide variety of wellbeing measures exist in the literature but it is not always clear what they are measuring, nor which measures best meet study objectives. This study seeks to identify the most valid and reliable measure/s of workers' wellbeing.

methodsMeasures will be included if they were (1) designed for measuring workers' wellbeing and (2) available in English. We will use a three-staged electronic search strategy to identify studies that include measures that meet the inclusion criteria: (1) electronic bibliographic databases for published work, (2) reference lists of studies with included measures, and (3) the reference list of previously published reviews. The following electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: OVID: psycINFO, psycTESTS, Cochrane library, AMED, Health and Psychosocial instruments; PubMed; PubPsych; Europe PMC; Scopus and Google Scholar. Database key search terms will include [wellbeing OR "well-being"] AND [employee* OR worker* OR staff OR personnel], and a validated search filter will be applied for the measurement properties. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed and rated. Then, this quality assessment of the included studies will be considered in the quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Finally, recommendations for the most appropriate instrument to measure workers' wellbeing will be reported. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will evaluate the quality of instruments that measure workers' wellbeing. The findings of this review will improve clarity for researchers and clinicians in the appropriate instrument selection in the measurement of workers' wellbeing. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018079044.

Indexed as

Health StatusOccupational HealthWork-Life BalanceHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicEmployee wellbeingMeasuresQuality appraisalSystematic reviewWork wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID30572952
PMCPMC6300880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.