Brita Roy1, Carley Riley2,3, Lindsay Sears4, Elizabeth Y Rula5. 1. 1 Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 2. 2 Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. 3 Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. 4 Sarah Cannon, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. 5 Tivity Health, Inc, Franklin, TN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To propose collective well-being as a holistic measure of the overall "health" of a community. To define collective well-being as a group-level construct measured across 5 domains (vitality, opportunity, connectedness, contribution, and inspiration) and introduce an actionable model that demonstrates how community characteristics affect collective well-being. To review the literature describing each domain's association with health outcomes and community characteristics' associations with collective well-being. METHODS: We came to consensus on topics describing each component of our conceptual model. Because "well-being" is not indexed in MEDLINE, we performed topic-specific database searches and examined bibliographies of papers retrieved. We excluded articles that were limited to narrow subtopics or studies within small subpopulations. Preference was given to quasi-experimental or randomized studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses. Consensus was reached on inclusion or exclusion of all articles. RESULTS: Reviewed literature supported each of the proposed domains as important aspects of collective well-being and as determinants of individual or community health. Evidence suggests a broad range of community characteristics support collective well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The health and quality of life of a community may be improved by focusing efforts on community characteristics that support key aspects of well-being. Future work should develop a unified measure of collective well-being to evaluate the relative impact of specific efforts on the collective well-being of communities.
OBJECTIVES: To propose collective well-being as a holistic measure of the overall "health" of a community. To define collective well-being as a group-level construct measured across 5 domains (vitality, opportunity, connectedness, contribution, and inspiration) and introduce an actionable model that demonstrates how community characteristics affect collective well-being. To review the literature describing each domain's association with health outcomes and community characteristics' associations with collective well-being. METHODS: We came to consensus on topics describing each component of our conceptual model. Because "well-being" is not indexed in MEDLINE, we performed topic-specific database searches and examined bibliographies of papers retrieved. We excluded articles that were limited to narrow subtopics or studies within small subpopulations. Preference was given to quasi-experimental or randomized studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses. Consensus was reached on inclusion or exclusion of all articles. RESULTS: Reviewed literature supported each of the proposed domains as important aspects of collective well-being and as determinants of individual or community health. Evidence suggests a broad range of community characteristics support collective well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The health and quality of life of a community may be improved by focusing efforts on community characteristics that support key aspects of well-being. Future work should develop a unified measure of collective well-being to evaluate the relative impact of specific efforts on the collective well-being of communities.
Keywords:
built environment; collective well-being; community health; conceptual model; narrative review; population health; social determinants; social environment; well-being
Authors: Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Syed M Ahmed; Ayodola Anise; Atum Azzahir; Kellan E Baker; Anna Cupito; Milton Eder; Tekisha Dwan Everette; Kim Erwin; Maret Felzien; Elmer Freeman; David Gibbs; Ella Greene-Moton; Sinsi Hernández-Cancio; Ann Hwang; Felica Jones; Grant Jones; Marita Jones; Dmitry Khodyakov; J Lloyd Michener; Bobby Milstein; Debra S Oto-Kent; Michael Orban; Burt Pusch; Mona Shah; Monique Shaw; Julie Tarrant; Nina Wallerstein; John M Westfall; Asia Williams; Richard Zaldivar Journal: NAM Perspect Date: 2022-02-14
Authors: Sonia Y Angell; Michael V McConnell; Cheryl A M Anderson; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Douglas S Boyle; Simon Capewell; Majid Ezzati; Sarah de Ferranti; Darrell J Gaskin; Ron Z Goetzel; Mark D Huffman; Marsha Jones; Yosef M Khan; Sonia Kim; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Alexa T McCray; Robert K Merritt; Bobby Milstein; Dariush Mozaffarian; Tyler Norris; Gregory A Roth; Ralph L Sacco; Jorge F Saucedo; Christina M Shay; David Siedzik; Somava Saha; John J Warner Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gerhard Reese; Karen R S Hamann; Lea M Heidbreder; Laura S Loy; Claudia Menzel; Sebastian Neubert; Josephine Tröger; Marlis C Wullenkord Journal: J Environ Psychol Date: 2020-06-03
Authors: Brita Roy; Judith R L M Wolf; Michelle D Carlson; Reinier Akkermans; Bradley Bart; Paul Batalden; Julie K Johnson; Hub Wollersheim; Gijs Hesselink Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240