Bart Ryan, Ishak Waguih William, Ganjian Shaina, Jaffer Karim Yahia, Abdelmesseh Marina, Hanna Sophia, Gohar Yasmine, Azar Gezelle, Vanle Brigitte, Dang Jonathan, Danovitch Itai
Dr. Bart is with Western University of Health Sciences and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, California.
Drs. IsHak, Abdelmesseh, Vanle, Dang, and Danovitch and Mses. Ganjian, Abdelmesseh, and Gohar are with the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, California.
Innov Clin Neurosci. 2018 Oct 1;15(9-10):14-23.
We conducted a systematic review of the published literature relating to the assessment and measurement of wellness in order to answer the following questions: 1) What is the working definition of wellness? 2) What wellness assessment instruments have been evaluated or applied in medical settings? 3) How valid, reliable, and accessible are these wellness assessment tools? The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Studies published from1990 to 2016 on wellness assessment were identified through Medline and PsycINFO using the following keywords: "assessment" OR "evaluation" OR "measurement" AND "wellness" OR "wellbeing." Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis then reached a consensus on 23 studies that met the specific selection criteria. This review revealed that there is a lack of uniform definition of wellness. The studies utilizing wellness assessment tools demonstrate strongest reliability values for the following instruments: Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle, Five-factor Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle, Perceived Wellness Survey, the Optimal Living Profile, and the Body-Mind-Spirit Wellness Behavior and Characteristic Inventory. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the clinical utility of a single particular wellness instrument. Properly defining wellness might help drive the development and validation of more precise assessment and measurement methods. This could reinforce interventions that promote wellness.
我们对已发表的有关健康评估与测量的文献进行了系统综述,以回答以下问题:1)健康的现行定义是什么?2)哪些健康评估工具已在医疗环境中得到评估或应用?3)这些健康评估工具的有效性、可靠性和可及性如何?本系统综述遵循了系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。通过Medline和PsycINFO,使用以下关键词检索了1990年至2016年发表的关于健康评估的研究:“评估”或“评价”或“测量”以及“健康”或“幸福”。两位作者独立进行了重点分析,然后就23项符合特定选择标准的研究达成了共识。该综述表明,目前缺乏统一的健康定义。使用健康评估工具的研究表明,以下工具具有最强的可靠性值:生活方式健康评估、生活方式五因素健康评估、感知健康调查、最佳生活概况以及身心灵健康行为与特征量表。然而,没有足够的证据支持单一特定健康工具的临床实用性。正确定义健康可能有助于推动更精确评估和测量方法的开发与验证。这可以加强促进健康的干预措施。