Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/33059
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
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.accessioned2023-06-08T23:09:23Z-
dc.date.available2023-06-08T23:09:23Z-
dc.date.issued2023-05-24-
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Public Health 2023; 11:1268en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/33059-
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.en_US
dc.subjectWellbeing measuresen_US
dc.subjectmethodological quality appraisalen_US
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen_US
dc.subjectworkersen_US
dc.titleWellbeing measures for workers: a systematic review and methodological quality appraisalen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleFrontiers in Public Healthen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustin Healthen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAuckland University of Technology (AUT), North Shore Campus, Auckland, New Zealanden_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Nursing, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053179en_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
local.name.researcherJarden, Rebecca J.
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
crisitem.author.deptAustin Health-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
fpubh-11-1053179.pdf921.26 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

104
checked on May 21, 2025

Download(s)

46
checked on May 21, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.