Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Protocol

Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol

Authors: Rebecca J. Jarden, Margaret Sandham, Richard J. Siegert, Jane Koziol-McLain

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Measuring wellbeing has never been so important. With the rapid growth of workplace wellbeing interventions, determining their effectiveness is not only good science but also good practice. A wide variety of wellbeing measures exist in the literature but it is not always clear what they are measuring, nor which measures best meet study objectives. This study seeks to identify the most valid and reliable measure/s of workers’ wellbeing.

Methods

Measures will be included if they were (1) designed for measuring workers’ wellbeing and (2) available in English. We will use a three-staged electronic search strategy to identify studies that include measures that meet the inclusion criteria: (1) electronic bibliographic databases for published work, (2) reference lists of studies with included measures, and (3) the reference list of previously published reviews. The following electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: OVID: psycINFO, psycTESTS, Cochrane library, AMED, Health and Psychosocial instruments; PubMed; PubPsych; Europe PMC; Scopus and Google Scholar. Database key search terms will include [wellbeing ORwell-being”] AND [employee* OR worker* OR staff OR personnel], and a validated search filter will be applied for the measurement properties. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed and rated. Then, this quality assessment of the included studies will be considered in the quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Finally, recommendations for the most appropriate instrument to measure workers’ wellbeing will be reported.

Discussion

This systematic review will evaluate the quality of instruments that measure workers’ wellbeing. The findings of this review will improve clarity for researchers and clinicians in the appropriate instrument selection in the measurement of workers’ wellbeing.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Carlson J, Geisinger K, Jonson J, editors. Twentieth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; 2017. Carlson J, Geisinger K, Jonson J, editors. Twentieth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; 2017.
2.
go back to reference Linton M, Dieppe P, Medina-Lara A, Watson L, Crathorne L. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010641.CrossRef Linton M, Dieppe P, Medina-Lara A, Watson L, Crathorne L. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010641.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Mäkikangas A, Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Schaufeli W. The longitudinal development of employee well-being: a systematic review. Work Stress. 2016;30:46–70.CrossRef Mäkikangas A, Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Schaufeli W. The longitudinal development of employee well-being: a systematic review. Work Stress. 2016;30:46–70.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Jarden R, Sandham M, Siegert R, Koziol-McLain J. Intensive care nurse conceptions of wellbeing: a prototype analysis. Nurs Crit Care. 2018;23:324–31.CrossRef Jarden R, Sandham M, Siegert R, Koziol-McLain J. Intensive care nurse conceptions of wellbeing: a prototype analysis. Nurs Crit Care. 2018;23:324–31.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hamling K, Jarden A, Schofield G. Recipes for occupational wellbeing: an investigation of the associations with wellbeing in New Zealand workers. N Z J Hum Resour Manage. 2015;15:151–73. Hamling K, Jarden A, Schofield G. Recipes for occupational wellbeing: an investigation of the associations with wellbeing in New Zealand workers. N Z J Hum Resour Manage. 2015;15:151–73.
6.
go back to reference Brand S, Fleming L, Wyatt K. Tailoring healthy workplace interventions to local healthcare settings: a complexity theory-informed workplace of well-being framework. Sci World J. 2015;2015:340820.CrossRef Brand S, Fleming L, Wyatt K. Tailoring healthy workplace interventions to local healthcare settings: a complexity theory-informed workplace of well-being framework. Sci World J. 2015;2015:340820.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Grant A, Christianson M, Price R. Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Acad Manag Perspect. 2007;21:51–63.CrossRef Grant A, Christianson M, Price R. Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Acad Manag Perspect. 2007;21:51–63.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dewe P, Kompier M. Foresight mental capital and wellbeing project. In: Wellbeing at work: future challenges. London: The Government Office for Science; 2008. Dewe P, Kompier M. Foresight mental capital and wellbeing project. In: Wellbeing at work: future challenges. London: The Government Office for Science; 2008.
9.
go back to reference Page K, Vella-Brodrick D. The “what,” “why” and “how” of employee wellbeing: a new model. Soc Indic Res. 2009;90:441–58.CrossRef Page K, Vella-Brodrick D. The “what,” “why” and “how” of employee wellbeing: a new model. Soc Indic Res. 2009;90:441–58.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lawrie E, Tuckey M, Dollard M. Job design for mindful work: the boosting effect of psychosocial safety climate. 2018;23:483–95. Lawrie E, Tuckey M, Dollard M. Job design for mindful work: the boosting effect of psychosocial safety climate. 2018;23:483–95.
11.
go back to reference Laine P, Rinne R. Developing wellbeing at work: emerging dilemmas. Int J Wellbeing. 2015;5:91–108.CrossRef Laine P, Rinne R. Developing wellbeing at work: emerging dilemmas. Int J Wellbeing. 2015;5:91–108.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Easton S, Van Laar D. User manual for the work-related quality of life (WRQoL) scale: a measure of quality of working life. 2018 edition. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth; 2018. Easton S, Van Laar D. User manual for the work-related quality of life (WRQoL) scale: a measure of quality of working life. 2018 edition. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth; 2018.
13.
go back to reference Jarden A, Jarden R. Positive psychological assessment for the workplace. In: Oades L, Steger M, Della-Fave A, Passmore J, editors. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work. New York: Wiley; 2016. p. 415–37. Jarden A, Jarden R. Positive psychological assessment for the workplace. In: Oades L, Steger M, Della-Fave A, Passmore J, editors. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work. New York: Wiley; 2016. p. 415–37.
14.
go back to reference Page K. Subjective wellbeing in the workplace. Unpublished honours thesis. Melbourne: Deakin University; 2005. Page K. Subjective wellbeing in the workplace. Unpublished honours thesis. Melbourne: Deakin University; 2005.
15.
go back to reference Page K, Vella-Brodrick D. The working for wellness program: RCT of an employee well-being intervention. J Happiness Stud. 2013;14:1007–31.CrossRef Page K, Vella-Brodrick D. The working for wellness program: RCT of an employee well-being intervention. J Happiness Stud. 2013;14:1007–31.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. No. 70. New Zealand: New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office; 2015. Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. No. 70. New Zealand: New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office; 2015.
19.
go back to reference Dodge R, Daly A, Huyton J, Sanders L. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing. 2012;2:222–35.CrossRef Dodge R, Daly A, Huyton J, Sanders L. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing. 2012;2:222–35.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Huppert F. Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2009;1:137–64.CrossRef Huppert F. Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2009;1:137–64.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hone L, Schofield G, Jarden A. Conceptualizations of wellbeing: insights from a prototype analysis on New Zealand workers. N Z J Hum Resour Manage. 2015;15:97–118. Hone L, Schofield G, Jarden A. Conceptualizations of wellbeing: insights from a prototype analysis on New Zealand workers. N Z J Hum Resour Manage. 2015;15:97–118.
22.
go back to reference Fisher C. Conceptualizing and measuring wellbeing at work. In: Cooper CL, editor. Wellbeing: a complete reference guide. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014. Fisher C. Conceptualizing and measuring wellbeing at work. In: Cooper CL, editor. Wellbeing: a complete reference guide. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014.
23.
go back to reference Terwee C, Jansma E, Riphagen I, de Vet H. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1115–23.CrossRef Terwee C, Jansma E, Riphagen I, de Vet H. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1115–23.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, Atkins D, Barbour V, Barrowman N, Berlin JA, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:1-6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, Atkins D, Barbour V, Barrowman N, Berlin JA, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:1-6.
25.
go back to reference Mokkink L, Prinsen C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Bouter L, de Vet H, Terwee C. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): user manual; 2018. Mokkink L, Prinsen C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Bouter L, de Vet H, Terwee C. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): user manual; 2018.
26.
go back to reference Mokkink L, de Vet H, Prinsen C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Bouter L, Terwee C. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171–9.CrossRef Mokkink L, de Vet H, Prinsen C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Bouter L, Terwee C. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171–9.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Prinsen C, Mokkink L, Bouter L, Alonso J, Patrick D, de Vet H, Terwee C. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57.CrossRef Prinsen C, Mokkink L, Bouter L, Alonso J, Patrick D, de Vet H, Terwee C. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Prinsen C, Vohra S, Rose M, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson P, Terwee C. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. BMC Trials. 2016;17:449–59. Prinsen C, Vohra S, Rose M, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson P, Terwee C. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. BMC Trials. 2016;17:449–59.
29.
go back to reference Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.CrossRef Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Guyatt G, Oxman A, Akl E, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, deBeer H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.CrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman A, Akl E, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, deBeer H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol
Authors
Rebecca J. Jarden
Margaret Sandham
Richard J. Siegert
Jane Koziol-McLain
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0905-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Systematic Reviews 1/2018 Go to the issue