Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41724823›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

A cross-sectional analysis of male versus female flourishing among 202,898 participants across 22 countries on 73 variables in the global flourishing study.

Tim Lomas, R Noah Padgett, Meg A Warren, Byron R Johnson, Tyler J VanderWeele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tim LomasDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. tlomas@hsph.harvard.edu.
R Noah PadgettDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Meg A WarrenCollege of Business and Economics, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA.
Byron R JohnsonInstitute for Studies of Religion, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA.
Tyler J VanderWeeleDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Fetzer Institute 4354John Templeton Foundation 61665Templeton Religion Trust 1308TWCF 0605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A prominent debate in modern society is how males or females are faring relative to each other. Despite a vast literature, most research is constrained by two issues: a limited conceptualization and assessment of what it means to do well; and a relatively narrow, often Western-centric coverage. To address these issues, this paper examines male-female differences on 73 items relating to all aspects of wellbeing in the Global Flourishing Study, with data from 202,898 participants across 22 countries. When organizing the items into six domains according to VanderWeele’s flourishing framework, females do slightly better on three (happiness and satisfaction, social relationship quality, and meaning and purpose), and males on two (self-rated health, and financial and material security), and with character/virtue equal. While all domains are weighted equally, since females are only marginally higher on three, whereas the gaps on the two male-led ones are much bigger, males fare slightly better on an overall flourishing index. There is also considerable country-level variation throughout the findings however, showing these general trends are not universal but contingent on local socio-cultural dynamics.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHappinessHumansMalePersonal SatisfactionPsychological Well-BeingSex FactorsFemaleFlourishingGenderMaleSexWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID41724823
PMCPMC13021907

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.