ReviewEuropean journal of ageing2026
Defining psychological capacity for a measure of healthy ageing: a rapid scoping review.
Review in European journal of ageing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Definition and conceptual framework of the psychological domain of intrinsic capacity in healthy ageing: outcomes from the MOSAIC International Working Group.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychological capacity is a key element of intrinsic capacity for healthy ageing; however, it has not been well defined, and no established measure exists. Existing studies predominantly use a deficit framing when measuring psychological capacity, which does not align with the World Health Organization's intrinsic capacity framework of healthy ageing. The objective of this rapid scoping review was to identify definitions and attributes of positive psychological capacity to inform development of a measure of psychological capacity for healthy ageing. This review included English-language studies of any design that provided either a specific conceptual or operational definition of psychological capacity or psychological capital, or named attributes as being related to psychological capacity or capital. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase and Scopus for studies published between 1 January 2010 and 16 April 2025. Retrieved citations were screened and assessed against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Text data relating to definitions and descriptions of psychological capacity and psychological capital were extracted and collated. Psychological capacity attributes were inductively identified and grouped into categories. Of the 603 studies that were screened, 78 were included. Only two (2.5%) of the included studies related to older adults. The majority of studies (n = 46, 59%) related to the context of 'work'. Eight different definitions of psychological capacity were identified, as well as several descriptions. Fifty-six attributes of psychological capacity were identified in included studies, and these were grouped into nine domains. There was considerable heterogeneity in definitions of psychological capacity, and no definition specific to healthy ageing. The vast majority of the literature related to the workplace context, driven by goals of performance and competitive advantage, rather than healthy ageing. Our study highlights the need for a strength-based definition and identification of attributes of psychological capacity for healthy ageing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.