Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34240644›Full record

ReviewThe International journal of social psychiatry2021

A critical review of the definition of 'wellbeing' for doctors and their patients in a post Covid-19 era.

Gemma Simons, David S Baldwin

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The International journal of social psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
29.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gemma SimonsCentre for Workforce Wellbeing, Department of Psychiatry, University of Southampton, College Keep, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2454-5948
David S BaldwinCentre for Workforce Wellbeing, Department of Psychiatry, University of Southampton, College Keep, UK.
University of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no international consensus definition of 'wellbeing'. This has led to wellbeing being captured in many different ways.

aimsTo construct an inclusive, global operational definition of wellbeing.

methodsThe differences between wellbeing components and determinants and the terms used interchangeably with wellbeing, such as health, are considered from the perspective of a doctor. The philosophies underpinning wellbeing and modern wellbeing research theories are discussed in terms of their appropriateness in an inclusive definition.

resultsAn operational definition is proposed that is not limited to doctors, but universal, and inclusive: 'Wellbeing is a state of positive feelings and meeting full potential in the world. It can be measured subjectively and objectively, using a salutogenic approach'.

conclusionsThis operational definition allows the differentiation of wellbeing from terms such as quality of life and emphasises that in the face of global challenges people should still consider wellbeing as more than the absence of pathology.

Indexed as

COVID-19PhysiciansHumansQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2definitiondoctorsWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID34240644
PMCPMC8592098
OpenAlexW3178755067

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.