2023
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053179
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wellbeing measures for workers: a systematic review and methodological quality appraisal

Abstract: IntroductionIncreasing 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.MethodsElectronic 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 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 77 publications
(281 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Capturing data of clinicians' workplace and psycho-social experiences has been the subject of decades of management and psychological research, leading to a multitude of instruments. [17][18][19][20] Existing instruments have largely explored individual psychological states and traits, well-being and/ or workplace conditions. 3 Similar constructs are regularly explored in workplace surveys among healthcare staff in Australia and internationally.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Capturing data of clinicians' workplace and psycho-social experiences has been the subject of decades of management and psychological research, leading to a multitude of instruments. [17][18][19][20] Existing instruments have largely explored individual psychological states and traits, well-being and/ or workplace conditions. 3 Similar constructs are regularly explored in workplace surveys among healthcare staff in Australia and internationally.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%