ReviewPopulation health metrics2026
Characterizing U.S. community well-being indices: a methodological synthesis and measurement systems perspective.
Review in Population health metrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe proliferation of community well-being indices (CWBI) reflects growing recognition that both individual experiences and place-based conditions shape population health and quality of life. These indices are increasingly used to inform public health policy, community planning, and population health monitoring. However, there is substantial variation across indices in how community well-being is conceptualized, measured, and reported. Despite their expanding use, few studies have systematically compared these indices as integrated measurement systems. This study aimed to characterize and compare CWBI using a measurement systems perspective.
methodsWe conducted a structured, purposive review of U.S.-based CWBI to characterize approaches using five methodological components describing domain and indicator selection, statistical estimation and weighting, construction and geographic aggregation, evaluation of measurement properties, and dissemination. Evaluation of measurement properties was characterized based on reported evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness. The Boston University-Sharecare Community Well-being Index (BU-SC CWBI) was included as an illustrative example.
resultsOf the 315 measures identified, 11 met inclusion criteria and were characterized, along with the BU-SC CWBI. Across systems, the number of domains ranged from 2 to 10 (median 5), and the number of indicators ranged from 11 to 93 (median 43). Collectively, indices incorporated 86 distinct data sources drawn primarily from publicly available administrative and surveillance datasets; two systems also incorporated individual-level subjective measures. Although not mutually exclusive, systems were heuristically classified into three broad methodological orientations that reflect a continuum of priorities with respect to conceptual organization, aggregation approaches, and the use of empirical and model-based methods. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in statistical estimation, weighting, and evaluation of measurement properties, with limited and inconsistent reporting of reliability, validity, and related evaluation analyses.
conclusionsCWBI differ in both indicators used to represent well-being and methodological approaches used to construct and evaluate them. Conceptualizing these indices as measurement systems provides a structured approach for comparing approaches, clarifying trade-offs, and improving interpretability and comparability. While CWBI may be designed for different goals and applied in different contexts, a systematic approach to their characterization may facilitate transparency and more informed use in research and policy.
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.