Table 1.

Well-being assessments used in the occupational health and well-being literature

Well-being assessment citation	Name of assessment	Items and rating	Reliability/ validity	Samples/Population(s) from occupational health and well-being studies	Assessment limitations noted in the occupational health and well-being studies	Other well-being assessments used in combination
Tibblin et al., 1990 [8]	Goteborg Quality of Life Instrument (QoL): Well-Being Scale	19 items; rated 1–7	α = 0.72–0.89	Middle-aged woman. [9]; This study investigates 108 male workers in Sweden. [10]
Dyrbye et al., 2013 [11]	Mayo Clinic Physician Well-being Index	Seven items; rated yes/no	α = 0.83	Physicians and APPs employed by the Health Texas Provider Network [12]	Cross-sectional, self-selection bias, limited external validity, unmeasured covariate bias [12]	Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [13,14]; Interpersonal Reactivity Index [15]
Dyrbye et al., 2010 [16]	Medical Students Well-Being Index (MSWBI)	Seven “yes or no” questions; rated one or zero. MSWBI scores range from zero to seven, and seven points indicate the greatest level of distress.	α = 0.68; The majority of MSWBI items had a ≥74% sensitivity and specificity for detecting distress within the intended domain.	Medical students of all years (1st–6th) from all 22 Polish medical schools. [17]
Butler & Kern, 2016 [18]	PERMA scale (multideimensional model of well-being)	Five dimensions: Positive Emotion (P), Engagement (E),Relationships (R), Meaning (M),Accomplishment (A). Twenty-three items, 11 point Likert scale (0–10) used Japanese version	α =0.75–0.96	310 workers completed questionnaire online. [19]		Brief Job Stress Questionnaire [20], Utrecht Work Engaement Scale [21]
Lau et al., 2005 [22]	Personal well-being index – Chinese version and English version	Seven items; 0 (completely dissatisfied)–10 (completely satisfied); normative values range between 60 and 70	α = 0.73–0.85	Community dwelling older persons with mild dementia in Hong Kong.[26]; Adults with chronic SCI aged 70 years or less [27]; The NZAVS is an ongoing 20-year national longitudinal panel study of social attitudes, personality, and health outcomes that beganin 2009. Thes ample analyzed in the current study involve participants who completed the survey during the nation wide Level 4 lockdown (March 25 through April27, 2020) as well as around the same time period the prior year in the tenth wave of the study. [28]; 1190 hospital midwives from 7 countries (2 Asian, 5 Europe). [29]	Small sample size, lack of community resources in dementia care, low minimum requirements for caregiver visits, low literacy level in spouse caregivers, and the noncompliance of participants with dementia, the program might also have inadvertently increased the burden to the family caregiver. [26] Small sample, participants were self-selected, lack of blinding in the study/ every participant was aware of their allocation [27]	The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale short version [30]; Spinal Cord Lesion Emotional Well-being Questionnaire version 1 Australia [31]
Lau et al., 2008 [23]
Cummins et al., 2004 [24]
Cummins et al., 2003 [25]
Chassany et al., 2004 [32] Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2012 [33]	Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI): Subscales: Interpersonal Fit at Work, Perceived Recognition at Work, Thriving at Work, Involvement at Work, and Feeling of Competency at Work	22 items; rated 0–5	α = 0.70–0.85	Online survey, in nine tertiary educational institutions, eight Universities in Australia and one in New Zealand. [34]; Four public institutions in Gabon (Africa). [35]	Small sample. [34]	Short Almost Perfect Scale [36]
Kaplan et al 1997 [37]; Kaplan & Anderson, 1998 [38]	Quality of Well-being, Self-Administered (QWB-SA)	It has 5 scales and 58 questions using a dichotomous scale. The Quality of Well-being scale is a preference-weighted measure combining three scales of functioning with a measure of symptoms and problems to produce a point-in-time expression of well-being that runs from 0 (for death) to 1.0 (for asymptomatic full function).		218 English speaking adults who attended primary care clinics. 86 participants with combat-related major lower-limb amputatio. [39]; 75 staff in ambulatory care environment in United States. [40]
Ryff, 1989 [41]; Palma-Candia et al., 2019 [42]; Toledano-Gonzales et al., 2019 [43]; Jang et al., 2019 [44] Sirigatti et al., 2009 [45]	Ryff Psychological Well-Being Scale; Ryff PWB (Spanish Version); Ryff PWB (Korean Version) Ryff PWB (Italian Version)	42 items; rated 1–7 6 subscales: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. Spanish Version: 39 items; rated 1–7. Korean Version: 46 items; rated 1–7	α = 0.86–0.93 α = 0.78–0.81 (Spanish Version) α = 0.66-0.76 (Korean Version)	Older Adults in Magallanes, Chile. [42]; 74 older adults living in retirement homes. [43]; 399 Korean Nurses in a university hospital. 1142 people who report having multiple sclerosis. [46]; 2102 community residents in Tokyo aged 30.	Not possible to obtain two groups of similar sociodemographic characteristics. [42]; Small sample size. [43]; Only one hospital, and only for nurses; Self-reported, cross-sectional. [46]	Satisfaction with Life Scale [47]
Ware et al., 1996 [48]Al Sayah et al., 2013 [49] Pickard et al., 1999 [50]	Short Form 12 (SF-12; produced physical component score for physical well-being and mental component score for mental well-being) - Italian version or the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-12)	12 items; some rated yes/no, others rated excellent to poor, not at all to extremely	SF-12 achieved a R2 of 0.911 in the prediction of PCS-36 and 0.918 in the prediction of MCS-36	Nurses, physicians, residents, and medical and nursing students in the oncology-hematology units of 3 teaching hospitals in Rome. [51]; 1871 Australian veterans who served in the Gulf region during the period August 2, 1990 to September 4, 1991 [52]. University professors of all majors in Jordan [53]. 254 individuals who met criteria for mild stroke at Washington University	Cross-sectional and self-report. [51] Only included probable musculo skeletal conditions, these were not confirmed by a diagnostic process or a validity study. [52]; An online survey which could have limited generalizability. [53]	Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) [30,54,55]Neck Disability Index [56,57]; The International Physical Activity Questionnaire [58–60]
Migliorini et al., 2008 [31]	Spinal Cord Lesion Emotional Well-being Questionnaire version 1 Australia (three domains: helplessness, intrusion and personal growth)	12 items; rated 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree or 4 = strongly agree	α = 0.78	Adults with chronic SCI aged 70 years or less. [27]	Small sample, participants were self-selected, lack of blinding in the study/ every participant was aware of their allocation. [27]	The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale short version [30]; Personal Well-being Index–Adult [24]
Paloutzian & Ellison 1991 [61]	Spiritual Well-Being Scale	20-item Likert scale; two subscales: religious well-being and existential well-being. sum of two subscales is total spiritual well-being score, with higher total score indicating higher spiritual well-being.	α = .0.87	Relations of spiritual well-being, globall job satisfaction, and general self-efficacy to hope in 64 Continuing Care Assistants. [62]
Malinakova et al., 2017 [63]	Spiritual Well-Being Scale-Shortened version	Seven items, six point Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree	α = 0.814	A nationally representative sample (4217) of Czech adolescents [63]; 4182 Czech adolescents [64]	self-report, problems with some of the items on the scale which created a separate factor
Petride et al., 2003 [65] Stamatopoulou et al., 2016 [66]	Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF): Subscales 1) Well Being, 2) Self-Control, 3) Emotionality, and 4) Sociability	30 items; rated 1–7	α = 0.52–0.85	nurses working in both public (52.9%) and private (47.1%) health units in Greece. [67]		Boredom Proneness Scale Farmer & Sundberg, 1986 [68]
Watanabe et al., 2020 [69]	University of Tokyo Occupational Mental Health (TOMH) Well-being Scale	24 items; rated 1–4	α = 0.671–0.845	Japanese workers [69]	Selection bias, may have been errors inmeasuring assessment of the standards of convergent validity, not generalizabile to workers from other cultural backgrounds [69]
Tennant et al., 2007 [70]	Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)	14 items; rated 1–5	α = 0.89 (student sample); α = 0.91 (population sample)	Students, working adults, and patients (one psychiatric population composed of patients with remitted schizophrenia). [71]; Sport coaching networks across Australia. [72]; Office employees at each of four Spanish universities in Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia. [73]; A large stratified random sample of veterinary surgeons practising in the UK. [74]; Sit less, move more intervention was assessed at 6 Spanish University campuses. The intevention had no effect on mental well-being. [73]; 174 Australian junior cricket players attending either the male U19 National Championships or the female U18 National Championship. [75]; 13 homeless in Canada. [76]; 424 mental health employees and manager. [77]	Ex-coaches who have burnout not represented (survival bias) and lack of personal and social variables measured known to effect mental well-being. [72]; Evidence to support a range of psychometric properties for the comparator scales (i.e., Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) is restricted to samples of other populations. [74]
Taggart et al., 2013 [78]; Bartram et al 2011 [79]; Tennant et al., 2007 [70]	Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) -English version	14 items; rated 1–5	α = 0.88–0.94	Pakistani healthcare professionals. [80]; UK veterinarians. [81]; 126 patients in Hong Kong. [82]; 148 employees at 2 emergency departments in Queensland, Australia. [83]; 744 students studying veterinary medicine, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and law in the UK [84]	Not translated into Urdu the official language of Pakistan, convenience sample, data only collected from Punjab, cannot be generalized to the whole Pakistani population, occupational stress was measured very subjectively by presence or absence, rather than with a cross-culturally validated scale, healthcare providers were not inquired about their psychiatric health using scales for common mental illnesses. [80]; Nursing staffin a hospital in the city Kaunas, Lithuania. [85]; 72 healthy elderly people in Canada. [86]	Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale[87]; Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool. [88]; Questions on suicidal ideation. [89]; Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. [90]
Schlosser, 1990 [91]	Well Being Scale (WBS-36).	36 items on a 5-point scale.	0.94 when tested on 178 healthy individuals	39 critically injured patients in Canada.
Myers et al., 2020 [92]; Myers et al., 2008 [93]	Well-Being Actions Self-Efficacy Ssale (interpersonal, community, occupational, physical, psychological, and economic)	18 items; rated 0– 4	Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.75 (interpersonal) to 0.84 (occupational)	Adults with obesity or overweight [92]	Self-report [92]	Expanded version of the I COPPE action scale [92,94]
Williams et al., 2017 [95]	Well-Being Process Questionnaire (work characteristics, individual differences, personalisty, outcomes)	25 items; 1–10, strongly disagree to agree strongly (except for stress, rated 1–5)	Average estimated reliability for the single-item measures in this study was above the 0.50 level and a range of items from demands to self-esteem and positive mood were above 0.70	120 university staff members aged 20-64. [96]; 3164 Irish physicans. [97]	A more representative sample of the general population, canonly note casual relations, the fact that DASS-21 measured emotional states rather than diagnostic categories may be observed as a limitation	Self-Rated health [98]; The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) [99]; Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21) [30], one item of self-stigma
Bech et al., 2003 [100]; Bonsignore et al., 2014 [101] Topp et al., 2015 [102]	WHO-5 Well-Being Index WHO-5 Well-Being Score (Danish version)	5 items; rated 0–100	α = 0.80–0.91; good construct validity and acceptable sensitivity (M = 0.86) and specificity (M = 0.81)	463 volunteers from Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and EMC and other employed adults.[103]; Health professionals (majority female nurses working at a university). [104]; Employees at a major tertiary healthcare institution (the Mayo Clinic) [105]; Occupational therapy practitioners and students [106]; Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia During the COVID-19 Pandemic [107]; German Emergency Medical Service Workers [108]; Residents in nursing homes [109]; 10 patients receiving spasticity treatment including botulinum toxin injection and physiotherapy and/or occupational therapy. [110]; Patients with epilepsy aged≥15 years from three outpatient clinics in Central Denmark Region. [111]; Persons with chronic suicidality as the primary presenting complaint. [112]; RCT 67 individuals with type two diabetes. [113]; Australian workplace adults. [114]; Stress-afflicted long-term sickness benefit beneficiaries in Denmark. [115]; 60 GPs and registrars working in either a full-time or part-time capacity in Emerald, Queensland. [116]; 231 physiotherapy patients with musculoskeletal disease, response rate to well-being questionnaire was 66. [117]; 93 leaders of different professions from a tertiary hospital in Germany. [118]; Arabic version of WHO-5 was used with 200 patients from six rural PHC settings in the Ismailia, Egypt governorate. [119]; 1,164 employees nested in 30 workplaces in Canada.[120]; 237 residents from 6 communities in Shanghai. [121]; 545 Danish child protection workers. [122]; 126 paitents in Hong Kong. [82]; 169 volunteers in United Kingdom [123]; 502 university employee in United Kingdom. [124]; 147 employees at a insurance company in Germany. [125]	Recruitment problems, which led to the study’s being under powered to detect behavior change in a randomized intervention trial.[103]; Single healthcare setting and small sample size [105]; Convenience sampling [106]; Healthcare workers who do not have internet access or were not familiar with online platforms were not represented [107]	6-item Gratitude Questionnaire [126]; Neff’s Self-Compassion scale (12 items) [127]; Confidence in providing Compassionate Care Scale (10 items) [128]; Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) [30]; Self-Compassion Scale [127]; Quality of Life in Dementia Scale (QUALID) [129]
Parker & Hyett, 2011 [130]	Work Well-Being Questionnaire	31 items; rated 0–5		1206 patients from an internet site called black dog insitutite. Majority female. [130]