评估健康模型的结构和领域:一个系统的回顾

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Krista Kauppi, Antero Vanhala, Eira Roos, P. Torkki
{"title":"评估健康模型的结构和领域:一个系统的回顾","authors":"Krista Kauppi, Antero Vanhala, Eira Roos, P. Torkki","doi":"10.5502/ijw.v13i2.2619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study systematically identifies different wellness domains, explores whether we are reaching any consensus, and presents an archetype of a wellness model. Methods: Studies were selected for review if they proposed a model for assessing individuals’ wellness, the model was generic (i.e., non-context or disease-specific), designed for adults and included at least physical, psychological and social domains. Furthermore, the study needed to be peer-reviewed with a full-text available in English. Based on this, 44 models were identified and their domains were extracted and grouped using thematic analysis, and placed under themes that were created using quantitative methods. Publication year and formed groupings were used to examine the evolution of models. Median, mode, and percentages were used to form the archetype. Results: The investigated models included 379 unique domains that could be clustered into 70 groups and under 14 themes. While the numbers of published wellness models increased, no consensus on the domains was reached. The majority of the models were presented at one level with five domains. Conclusions: Incorporating wellness into everyday practice requires comparable measures to evaluate and benchmark outcomes. Hence, we need to reach a mutual understanding on the structure and domains of wellness.","PeriodicalId":36390,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Wellbeing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the structures and domains of wellness models: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Krista Kauppi, Antero Vanhala, Eira Roos, P. Torkki\",\"doi\":\"10.5502/ijw.v13i2.2619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: This study systematically identifies different wellness domains, explores whether we are reaching any consensus, and presents an archetype of a wellness model. Methods: Studies were selected for review if they proposed a model for assessing individuals’ wellness, the model was generic (i.e., non-context or disease-specific), designed for adults and included at least physical, psychological and social domains. Furthermore, the study needed to be peer-reviewed with a full-text available in English. Based on this, 44 models were identified and their domains were extracted and grouped using thematic analysis, and placed under themes that were created using quantitative methods. Publication year and formed groupings were used to examine the evolution of models. Median, mode, and percentages were used to form the archetype. Results: The investigated models included 379 unique domains that could be clustered into 70 groups and under 14 themes. While the numbers of published wellness models increased, no consensus on the domains was reached. The majority of the models were presented at one level with five domains. Conclusions: Incorporating wellness into everyday practice requires comparable measures to evaluate and benchmark outcomes. Hence, we need to reach a mutual understanding on the structure and domains of wellness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Wellbeing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Wellbeing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v13i2.2619\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Wellbeing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v13i2.2619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:本研究系统地识别了不同的健康领域,探讨了我们是否达成了共识,并提出了一个健康模型的原型。方法:如果研究提出了一个评估个人健康的模型,则选择该模型进行审查,该模型是通用的(即,非环境或疾病特异性),为成年人设计,至少包括身体,心理和社会领域。此外,该研究需要经过同行评审,并提供英文全文。在此基础上,确定了44个模型,并利用主题分析方法对其领域进行了提取和分组,并将其放置在使用定量方法创建的主题下。使用出版年份和形成的分组来检查模型的演变。中位数,模式和百分比被用来形成原型。结果:所研究的模型包括379个独特的领域,可以聚类到70个组和14个主题下。虽然发表的健康模型的数量有所增加,但在这些领域没有达成共识。大多数模型在一个具有五个域的级别上呈现。结论:将健康纳入日常实践需要可比较的措施来评估和基准结果。因此,我们需要在健康的结构和领域上达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the structures and domains of wellness models: A systematic review
Objective: This study systematically identifies different wellness domains, explores whether we are reaching any consensus, and presents an archetype of a wellness model. Methods: Studies were selected for review if they proposed a model for assessing individuals’ wellness, the model was generic (i.e., non-context or disease-specific), designed for adults and included at least physical, psychological and social domains. Furthermore, the study needed to be peer-reviewed with a full-text available in English. Based on this, 44 models were identified and their domains were extracted and grouped using thematic analysis, and placed under themes that were created using quantitative methods. Publication year and formed groupings were used to examine the evolution of models. Median, mode, and percentages were used to form the archetype. Results: The investigated models included 379 unique domains that could be clustered into 70 groups and under 14 themes. While the numbers of published wellness models increased, no consensus on the domains was reached. The majority of the models were presented at one level with five domains. Conclusions: Incorporating wellness into everyday practice requires comparable measures to evaluate and benchmark outcomes. Hence, we need to reach a mutual understanding on the structure and domains of wellness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Wellbeing
International Journal of Wellbeing Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信