Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37293618›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023

Wellbeing measures for workers: a systematic review and methodological quality appraisal.

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Neuroscience Needs Behavioral "Wind Tunnels" for Real-Life Translation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Rebecca J JardenFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Richard J SiegertAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jane Koziol-McLainAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.
Helena BujalkaDepartment of Nursing, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Margaret H SandhamAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing attention on workplace wellbeing and growth in workplace wellbeing interventions has highlighted the need to measure workers' wellbeing. This systematic review sought to identify the most valid and reliable published measure/s of wellbeing for workers developed between 2010 to 2020. Methods: Electronic databases Health and Psychosocial Instruments, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus were searched. Key search terms included variations of Results: Eighteen articles reported development of new wellbeing instruments and eleven undertook a psychometric validation of an existing wellbeing instrument in a specific country, language, or context. Generation and pilot testing of items for the 18 newly developed instruments were largely rated 'Inadequate'; only two were rated as 'Very Good'. None of the studies reported measurement properties of responsiveness, criterion validity, or content validity. The three instruments with the greatest number of positively rated measurement properties were the Personal Growth and Development Scale, The University of Tokyo Occupational Mental Health well-being 24 scale, and the Employee Well-being scale. However, none of these newly developed worker wellbeing instruments met the criteria for adequate instrument design. Discussion: This review provides researchers and clinicians a synthesis of information to help inform appropriate instrument selection in measurement of workers' wellbeing. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=79044, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42018079044.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMental HealthHumansLanguageWorking ConditionsWorkplaceemployee wellbeingpsychometricsquality appraisalsystematic reviewwork wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID37293618
PMCPMC10244676

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.