Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292677›Full record

ReviewPublic health reviews2020

Understanding subjective well-being: perspectives from psychology and public health.

Kirti V Das, Carla Jones-Harrell, Yingling Fan, Anu Ramaswami, Ben Orlove, Nisha Botchwey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

46 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

6 authors.

Kirti V DasDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, E208 Engineering Quadrangle, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA. Kirtid@princeton.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5092-0671
Carla Jones-HarrellRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Yingling FanHubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Anu RamaswamiDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, E208 Engineering Quadrangle, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA.
Ben OrloveSchool of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Nisha BotchweyCollege of Design, Georgia Tech, 245 4th Street, NW, Suite 204, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation 1444745
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividual subjective well-being (SWB) is essential for creating and maintaining healthy, productive societies. The literature on SWB is vast and dispersed across multiple disciplines. However, few reviews have summarized the theoretical and empirical tenets of SWB literature across disciplinary boundaries.

methodsWe cataloged and consolidated SWB-related theories and empirical evidence from the fields of psychology and public health using a combination of online catalogs of scholarly articles and online search engines to retrieve relevant articles. For both theories and determinants/correlates of SWB, PubMed, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar were used to obtain relevant articles. Articles for the review were screened for relevance, varied perspectives, journal impact, geographic location of study, and topicality. A core theme of SWB empirical literature was the identification of SWB determinants/correlates, and over 100 research articles were reviewed and summarized for this review.

resultsWe found that SWB theories can be classified into four groups: fulfillment and engagement theories, personal orientation theories, evaluative theories, and emotional theories. A critical analysis of the conflicts and overlaps between these theories reveals the lack of a coherent theoretical and methodological framework that would make empirical research systematically comparable. We found that determinants/correlates of SWB can be grouped into seven broad categories: basic demographics, socioeconomic status, health and functioning, personality, social support, religion and culture, and geography and infrastructure. However, these are rarely studied consistently or used to test theories.

conclusionsThe lack of a clear, unifying theoretical basis for categorizing and comparing empirical studies can potentially be overcome using an operationalizable criterion that focuses on the dimension of SWB studied, measure of SWB used, design of the study, study population, and types of determinants and correlates. From our review of the empirical literature on SWB, we found that the seven categories of determinants/correlates identified may potentially be used to improve the link between theory and empirical research, and that the overlap in the determinant/correlates as they relate to multiple theory categories may enable us to test theories in unison. However, doing so in the future would require a conscious effort by researchers in several areas, which are discussed.

Indexed as

AffectiveCognitiveDeterminants and correlatesHappinessInterdisciplinary reviewLife evaluationPsychologyPublic healthSubjective well-beingTheories

Identifiers

PMID33292677
PMCPMC7678314

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.