Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42516825›Full record

ReviewHealth promotion perspectives2026

Toward a Unified Understanding: A Literature Review of Self-Care Conceptualization for the General Population.

Alexandra Marques-Pinto, Sofia Oliveira, Karina Moutinho, Mirela Ricarte, Carla Zambaldi, Sirley Almeida, Pompéia Villachan-Lyra, Ana Maria Fonte Alves, Taciana Breckenfeld, Maria Carolina Marques Dos Santos and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health promotion perspectives, 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

12 authors.

Alexandra Marques-PintoCICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9204-9519
Sofia OliveiraBusiness Research Unit (BRU), ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3941-1387
Karina MoutinhoUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7230-9857
Mirela RicarteUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-0856
Carla ZambaldiUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3821-2346
Sirley AlmeidaUniversidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0332-7792
Pompéia Villachan-LyraUniversidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5111-7538
Ana Maria Fonte AlvesUniversidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0016-6348
Taciana BreckenfeldUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7729-4698
Maria Carolina Marques Dos SantosUniversidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8038-4504
Joana Sampaio de CarvalhoCICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ari Gómez-BorgesWANT Research Team, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0135-5693

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The study and conceptualization of self-care have a longstanding history. However, a clear conceptualization of self-care remains contested due to the plurality of perspectives and diversity of definitions, particularly when considering the general population regardless of pathology. Our literature review aimed to better understand how to conceptualize self-care for the general population, drawing on existing scientific literature on self-care theory and conceptualization. Methods: We followed The Cochrane Collaboration's and PRISMA-P Group's methodological guidelines for the conceptualization, analysis, and reporting of literature reviews. Results: Our results reaffirmed the varied and evolving interpretations of self-care and provided insights into conceptualizing and promoting self-care among the general population. The analysis, based on three main criteria (definitions, antecedents, and consequences), highlighted a continuous renewal of the self-care concept across various disciplines and demographic groups. For the general population, self-care is fundamentally intentional and purpose-driven, encompassing a wide spectrum of purposes from health management to enhancing overall well-being. This multifaceted concept integrates actions, abilities, and socio-cognitive processes and emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple antecedents of self-care to develop effective policies and interventions that enhance well-being and quality of life across diverse groups. Conclusion: From our perspective, the conceptualization of self-care for the general population benefits from a systemic, ecological view. Moreover, promoting self-care outcomes, such as autonomy, independence, and self-efficacy, can yield benefits, including improved health and well-being for the general population. We advocate for a multi-tiered approach to self-care promotion, implemented through schools, workplaces, and broader community contexts, to maximize benefits across society.

Indexed as

Concept analysisGeneral populationLiterature reviewSelf-careSelf-care theory

Identifiers

PMID42516825
PMCPMC13402232

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.