Instruments to evaluate mental well-being in old age: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify and appraise existing instruments to evaluate mental well-being in old age. METHOD: Systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest Research Library, AgeLine and CINAHL databases were performed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline was used to assess the measurement properties, reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. For each measurement property, results were classified as positive, negative or indeterminate. The quality level of evidence was rated as high, moderate, low or very low following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 28 instruments were found. Most instruments evaluated different dimensions of mental well-being, including various subscales. The quality was adequate overall. Six instruments showed high quality (Perceived Well-Being Scale-PWB, Salamon-Conte Life Satisfaction in the Elderly Scale-SCLSES, Herth Hope Scale-HHS, Life Satisfaction Index Third Age-LSITA, Meaning in Life Scale-MLS, and SODdisfazione dell'Anziano-SODA), and other six a moderate level (Scale of Happiness of the Memorial University of Newfoundland-MUNSH, Six Scales of Psychological Well-Being-PWBS, Valuation Of Life-VOL, Life Satisfaction Scale for Chinese Elders-LSS-C, Meaningful Activity Participation Assessment-MAPA and Will To Life-WTL). CONCLUSION: This review provides the first comprehensive synthesis of instruments assessing mental well-being in older populations. The PWB, SCLSES, HHS, LSITA, MLS and SODA were the most appropriated instruments. An instrument that specifically measures mental well-being in the oldest old age group (aged 80 plus) and that considers its multidimensional nature is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".