Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42938491›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Well-Being Measurement in Africa: A Systematic Review.

Angelina Wilson Fadiji, Nnana Samuel Uchendu, Marie P Wissing

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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

3 authors.

Angelina Wilson FadijiDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3093-0538
Nnana Samuel UchenduDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Marie P WissingAfrica Unit of Transdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom-Campus, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-0445-6246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The general narrative in well-being measurement is a lack of representation of instruments developed and validated in the African context. However, there is no existing review solely focused on Africa that clearly demonstrates the extent of progress in the field and the current methodological challenges. The present study aims to systematically review and collate evidence on the validation of well-being measures in Africa. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, a total of 64 research articles were reviewed. The study's findings showed steady growth in well-being measurement in the African context. However, this growth has not been without challenges that are stifling our general understanding and consensus on how well-being should be measured in Africa. A persistent research gap is the development of new, contextually relevant measures of well-being. Among the recurring methodological challenges were translation issues, poor model fit indices and the use of small samples. We recommend further testing of locally developed well-being measures and their incorporation into international surveys, as cross-country assessments can only yield meaningful insights when the items used adequately capture local experiences. Translation of existing measures is key in accessing hard-to-reach populations, with such data informing clinical and community-based interventions.

Indexed as

Africapositive psychologypsychometric propertiessystematic reviewvalidationwell-being instruments

Identifiers

PMID42938491
PMCPMC13701410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.