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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jarden, Rebecca J., Sandham, Margaret, Siegert, Richard J., Koziol-McLain, Jane
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