Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38362251›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Measurement of flourishing: a scoping review.

Andrew Rule, Cody Abbey, Huan Wang, Scott Rozelle, Manpreet K Singh

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

5 authors.

Andrew RuleStanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Cody AbbeyStanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Huan WangStanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Scott RozelleStanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Manpreet K SinghStanford School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Flourishing is an evolving wellbeing construct and outcome of interest across the social and biological sciences. Despite some conceptual advancements, there remains limited consensus on how to measure flourishing, as well as how to distinguish it from closely related wellbeing constructs, such as thriving and life satisfaction. This paper aims to provide an overview and comparison of the diverse scales that have been developed to measure flourishing among adolescent and adult populations to provide recommendations for future studies seeking to use flourishing as an outcome in social and biological research. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we conducted a scoping review across PubMed and EMBASE of studies introducing original flourishing scales (defined as a previously unpublished measure of mental health or wellbeing that used "flourishing" in its definition). Studies focusing on adult populations that were published before April 28, 2023 were considered eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of 781 studies retrieved, we identified seven eligible studies covering seven unique flourishing scales. We find that all seven scales are multidimensional and assess features over monthly or yearly intervals. While most of the scales (six out of seven) include indicators of both hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing, the operationalization of these dimensions of wellbeing varies considerably between scales. Several of the scales have been translated and validated across multiple geographical contexts, including higher- and lower-income countries. Discussion: Complementing self-report measures with other social, economic, regional, and biological indicators of flourishing may be useful to provide holistic and widely applicable measures of wellbeing. This review contributes to concept validation efforts that can guide strategies to sustain flourishing societies.

Indexed as

clinical applicationsflourishingmeasurementscoping reviewwellbeing

Identifiers

PMID38362251
PMCPMC10867253

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.