Cargando…
Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300880/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30572952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0905-4 |
_version_ | 1783381760498728960 |
---|---|
author | Jarden, Rebecca J. Sandham, Margaret Siegert, Richard J. Koziol-McLain, Jane |
author_facet | Jarden, Rebecca J. Sandham, Margaret Siegert, Richard J. Koziol-McLain, Jane |
author_sort | Jarden, Rebecca J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 OR “well-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: PROSPERO CRD42018079044 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0905-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6300880 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63008802018-12-31 Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol Jarden, Rebecca J. Sandham, Margaret Siegert, Richard J. Koziol-McLain, Jane Syst Rev Protocol 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 OR “well-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: PROSPERO CRD42018079044 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0905-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6300880/ /pubmed/30572952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0905-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Protocol Jarden, Rebecca J. Sandham, Margaret Siegert, Richard J. Koziol-McLain, Jane Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
title | Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
title_full | Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
title_fullStr | Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
title_short | Quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
title_sort | quality appraisal of workers’ wellbeing measures: a systematic review protocol |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300880/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30572952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0905-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jardenrebeccaj qualityappraisalofworkerswellbeingmeasuresasystematicreviewprotocol AT sandhammargaret qualityappraisalofworkerswellbeingmeasuresasystematicreviewprotocol AT siegertrichardj qualityappraisalofworkerswellbeingmeasuresasystematicreviewprotocol AT koziolmclainjane qualityappraisalofworkerswellbeingmeasuresasystematicreviewprotocol |