Wellbeing Measures for Workers: A Systematic Review and Methodological Quality Appraisal

Simple item page
aut.relation.articlenumber1053179
aut.relation.journalFrontiers in Public Health
aut.relation.startpage1053179
aut.relation.volume11
dc.contributor.authorJarden, Rebecca J
dc.contributor.authorSiegert, Richard J
dc.contributor.authorKoziol-McLain, Jane
dc.contributor.authorBujalka, Helena
dc.contributor.authorSandham, Margaret H
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-12T01:01:40Z
dc.date.available2023-06-12T01:01:40Z
dc.date.issued2023-05-24
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Increasing attention on workplace wellbeing and growth in workplace wellbeing interventions has highlighted the need to measure workers' wellbeing. This systematic review sought to identify the most valid and reliable published measure/s of wellbeing for workers developed between 2010 to 2020. Methods: Electronic databases Health and Psychosocial Instruments, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus were searched. Key search terms included variations of [wellbeing OR “well-being”] AND [employee* OR worker* OR staff OR personnel]. Studies and properties of wellbeing measures were then appraised using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. Results: Eighteen articles reported development of new wellbeing instruments and eleven undertook a psychometric validation of an existing wellbeing instrument in a specific country, language, or context. Generation and pilot testing of items for the 18 newly developed instruments were largely rated 'Inadequate'; only two were rated as 'Very Good'. None of the studies reported measurement properties of responsiveness, criterion validity, or content validity. The three instruments with the greatest number of positively rated measurement properties were the Personal Growth and Development Scale, The University of Tokyo Occupational Mental Health well-being 24 scale, and the Employee Well-being scale. However, none of these newly developed worker wellbeing instruments met the criteria for adequate instrument design. Discussion: This review provides researchers and clinicians a synthesis of information to help inform appropriate instrument selection in measurement of workers' wellbeing. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=79044, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42018079044.
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Public Health, ISSN: 2296-2565 (Print); 2296-2565 (Online), Frontiers Media S.A., 11, 1053179-. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053179
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053179
dc.identifier.issn2296-2565
dc.identifier.issn2296-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10292/16239
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherFrontiers Media S.A.
dc.relation.urihttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053179/full
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectemployee wellbeing
dc.subjectpsychometrics
dc.subjectquality appraisal
dc.subjectsystematic review
dc.subjectwork wellbeing
dc.subjectemployee wellbeing
dc.subjectpsychometrics
dc.subjectquality appraisal
dc.subjectsystematic review
dc.subjectwork wellbeing
dc.subject4203 Health Services and Systems
dc.subject42 Health Sciences
dc.subjectBioengineering
dc.subjectBehavioral and Social Science
dc.subjectGeneric health relevance
dc.subject3 Good Health and Well Being
dc.subject1117 Public Health and Health Services
dc.subject4203 Health services and systems
dc.subject4206 Public health
dc.titleWellbeing Measures for Workers: A Systematic Review and Methodological Quality Appraisal
dc.typeJournal Article
pubs.elements-id508945
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Jarden et al._2023_Wellbeing measures for workers.pdf
Size:
921.26 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Journal article
Download
Collections
School of Clinical Sciences