Next Article in Journal
Shame, Stigma and Indebtedness in Gambling-Related Harm: A Rapid Review of Help-Seeking and Suicidality
Previous Article in Journal
Do Basic Psychological Needs and Self-Determined Motivation Outweigh Physical Activity Volume and Body Composition in Explaining Subjective Well-Being Among Community Gym Users?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 23
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph23091140
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Culturally Sensitive Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing Linked to Objective Measures: A Narrative Review

by
Joy M. Rooney
†
Independent Researcher, Worcester WR2 6AJ, UK
†
Associate Retired from University of Worcester.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2026, 23(9), 1140; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23091140
Submission received: 2 July 2026 / Revised: 17 August 2026 / Accepted: 28 August 2026 / Published: 31 August 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Global Health)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Highlights

Public health relevance—How does this work relate to a public health issue?
  • Objective wellbeing is quantitatively measurable in public health, yet for addressing health disparities and informing policy design, often-used subjective dimensions of wellbeing often rely on Western-derived frameworks, translated into the most spoken language of any particular country, rather than being culturally sensitive.
  • This narrative review considered how subjective Western-derived frameworks are inadequate for public health use; those culturally sensitive that were created in non-Western countries might be of use; and others that contain both subjective and objective or comprehensive dimensions of wellbeing will be.
Public health significance—Why is this work of significance to public health?
  • While the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) concentrates on high income countries across the globe to increase cultural sensitivity in its measures of public health wellbeing, other countries are not included which is of great significance to public health across the world, although the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) is catching up, but not all nations are included across both.
  • There is little synthesis of subjective dimensions of wellbeing in relation to cultural sensitivity across the world; few are then linked to objective measures.
Public health implications—What are the key implications or messages for practitioners, policy makers and/or researchers in public health?
  • For all, reliance on Western-derived subjective dimensions of wellbeing for use in other countries is inadequate.
  • For researchers, there is synthesis of current, available findings from which to spring-board, and examination of an old method in a new way (General Procrustes Analysis) is speculated to be a research tool that might compare and contrast different countries’ comprehensive wellbeing.

Abstract

Background: Subjective wellbeing frameworks are widely used to determine individual and collective holistic dimensions of wellness. Increasingly, they may be linked to objective measures for use in government wellbeing policy-making across the world, although their cultural sensitivity is questioned. Methods: Fifty-nine peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2026 were identified following Boolean searches in open access journals, screened, and quality assessed. Translated Western-English frameworks of seven authorities were compared, as were those ten within indigenous cultural groups. Ten other studies for consideration included objective and cultural dimensions. The remainder were used in background and synthesis presentation. Results: Five themes were distinguished: use of solid theoretical background; conceptual rationale for framework; methodological limitations; links, convergence, divergence, and contradictions; conceptual rationale for interpretation of related findings and theoretical considerations. Within a cultural group, even with great care in translation, and semantic amendments, most authorities’ dimensions of wellbeing models were questioned. Many interesting and adequate indigenous frameworks need invariance and longitudinal testing. Studies including quantitative objective measures of wellbeing more clearly defined unique cultural group effects within their environments. Conclusions: Dimensions of wellbeing need to be created, validated and reliably evaluated within the cultural groups they are intended to be used, rather than using translations. Much more quantitative research is needed with lay-consultation before, during, and following longitudinal studies.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization defined physical and mental wellbeing as an integral state where individuals realize their abilities, cope with normal life stresses, work productively, and contribute to their community, influenced by social, economic, and environmental conditions [1] Therefore, dimensions of wellbeing are those facets of being that might result in a positive mental health state, with good health, meaning in life, and happiness.
Initially created around fifty years ago, subjective multiple dimensions of wellbeing models were used as a holistic approach to individuals’ health, self-determined through consideration of many aspects of individuals’ daily lives. These dimensions were then: physical, emotional/mental, environmental, intellectual, occupational, social, spiritual, and financial. More recently, a five-dimensional model of wellbeing (economical, health behavior, life satisfaction, physical, spiritual) was formulated from a systematic review of 379 unique domains that were clustered into 70 groups, under 14 themes [2]. In addition, 205 domains were categorized in 12 dimensions of wellbeing (physical, social, spiritual, emotional, environment, mental/intellectual, occupational, energy, achievement, engagement, purpose, and capability). These centered around four primary categories: social, emotional, physical, and capability [3]. Also in 2023, a review of 13 models compared dimensions between models [4] but none with respect to cultural groups or environment [5].
Dimensions of wellbeing may focus on purpose, resulting in a life full of meaning (eudaimonism). When using this deficit approach, an identified deficit in a dimension might be transformed into sufficiency. In Western cultures, with adequate resources, sufficiency will occur through tutoring, at any age, to positively affect one or more dimensions, demonstrated recently through a meta-analysis [6].
In part, this study considers a cultural group to be a national population of a country. Cultural groups are unique in their own personal feelings and therefore in the way they interpret Likert-scale questions of items that make up subjective dimensions of wellbeing frameworks due to cultural group training within a particular environment. In addition, there are large numbers of cultural groups whose lives are severely challenged by their circumstances, for example, their socioeconomic context (for example, money, employment type, education, and social class) and/or environmental vulnerability (for example, harm from changes, hazards, or stresses like climate change, pollution, and storms).
Cultural groups’ languages hold differing meanings of directly translated words. Therefore, cognitive misunderstanding of descriptions and measurement assessments of different dimensions of wellbeing originally derived within one cultural group need to be identified and modified for another, declaring any changes. Indeed, dimensions may change completely because they are not relevant to a specific cultural group [7]. Therefore, a cultural group to which an individual belongs will result in different dimensions of wellbeing being more or less important to overall or comprehensive wellbeing. Ensuring healthy lives and promoting wellbeing amongst people of all ages is number 3 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [8].
Calls to consider cultural group sensitivity effects on dimensions of wellbeing models across the world is widespread, for example, within scoping reviews synthesizing hedonic, eudaimonic, physical health, and generic happiness dimensions [2,9]. In addition, a recent review of psychological wellbeing measures began to consider non-self-reported measures and cross-cultural issues in wellbeing [10]. More research regarding cultural group sensitivity through subjective and objective measurement is needed for national and international formulations to increase world comprehensive wellbeing.
Historically, there are a huge range of methodologies to produce dimensions of wellbeing models. However, there is little assimilation of cultural group effects through psychometric measurement, using Likert scales, to assess multi-dimensional aspects. Results from Likert scales, although subjectively produced, are quantitively analyzed through statistical methods. Validity and reliability need to be evaluated for all subjective dimensions of wellbeing models [11]. Ideally, these include: involving the cultural group and experts to develop culturally sensitive dimensions (each of which have Likert scales) important to them; initial testing with lay-cultural group members; assessing internal validity and dimension structure to reduce items to a significant, manageable level; validation of the dimension structure; determining internal, external, convergent, and divergent validity; and finally re-testing reliability of the dimensions, with a different sample of people from that cultural group (‘test re-test’). Latent structure analysis, without imposing pre-specified dimension structure might also be employed [12].
Objective measures of wellbeing, including longevity, education, standard of living, gross domestic product (GDP), economic and employment outcomes, perceived and objective health, are gained through census, household survey, consumption survey, and large national, or multinational surveys. More recently, call detail records, global positioning satellites (GPS) and transportation, social media, health and fitness, news, retail scanners, web searches, and crowdsourcing, provided information on health, job opportunities, socioeconomic development, environment, safety, and politics were reviewed as objective measures [13]. These authors also provided a new framework for subjective wellbeing data sources: social media, Google trends, crowdsourcing, and news were linked to wellbeing information on human genes, universal needs, and social, economic, and political environments [13].
Synthesis of cultural sensitivity of subjective and objective dimensions of wellbeing research is in its infancy. Due to there being an enormous scope of wellbeing research, this narrative review restricted its focus to answer the following questions:
  • How important are cultural groups in defining dimensions of wellbeing?
  • How linked are subjectively defined dimensions of wellbeing models and objective, empirical measures in terms of their cultural sensitivity?
This narrative reviewer became interested in the topic when also employed as a wellbeing tutor for UK Workers’ Education Association (WEA), an educational, third sector organization. The ten dimensions of wellbeing framework was created as an online, eight session course whose aim was to improve wellbeing within a range of UK student cultural groups. This narrative reviewer is also a lived experience survivor researcher with many years’ experience of research and publishing. Findings suggested that cultural groups were often not adequately considered when defining dimensions of wellbeing because they were linguistically and culturally inappropriate, necessitating modified frameworks. Most indigenously-created frameworks need longitudinal testing (test re-test), and comparison between cultural group frameworks is still in its infancy. Considered together, this is of huge significance to public health, policy, research, and world wellbeing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Definitions

  • Culture—includes language, ideas, beliefs, customs, codes, institutions, techniques, works of art, rituals, and ceremonies
  • Cultural groups—are collections of individuals who subjectively share similar traditions, beliefs, values, behaviors, and practices that are conserved through generations, for example, religion and language. A cultural group may also be a demographic group, for example, sharing similar age, gender, income, and race/ethnicity.
  • Subjective wellbeing—is an umbrella term for how people think and feel about their lives as a whole, which is self-defined.
  • Eudaimonic wellbeing—is a state of life satisfaction based on meaning, purpose, and self-realization, not temporary internal emotional state/or external effect.
  • Happiness—in the West is linked to high-arousal states, for example, excitement, while other world-perspectives focus on low-arousal calm, interpersonal harmony, family solidarity, and shared community wellbeing.
  • Hedonic wellbeing—is more narrowly focused than subjective wellbeing, concentrating on emotional balance (high positive affect or low negative affect), often short-lived.
  • Objective/empirical wellbeing—relies on external factual conditions of life (for example, income, health status), which are measured, sometimes independently of the self.
  • Wellness—is the active conscious pursuit of choices, activities, and lifestyles that lead to optimal physical, mental, and holistic health and is usually self-defined.

2.2. Search Strategy

A narrative review approach of a single author interpretive assessment was used to search the literature following constructing the Boolean search terms (1) “cultural group” AND “dimensions of well*” AND (validity OR validation) AND (instrument* OR measure*) across all fields, using Science Direct, PubMed, CORE, Google Scholar, and Google.
These search terms were revisited to expand “cultural group” through adding (2) (belief* OR attitude* OR value* OR tradition* OR practice*) search terms. These five terms were then removed, and (3) (spiritual OR religion) search terms were added to the original search terms.
Due to the large number of matching papers, search terms (4) NOT (educat* OR organization* OR organizational OR work* OR learn* OR employee OR leadership OR child*) were added to each of the three searches. A final search contained (5) “cultural group” AND ”dimensions of well*” AND objective. For example, for Google Scholar, this resulted in the screening of (1) and (4): 355 papers; (2) and (4): 17,900 papers (first 500 were screened); (3) and (4): 160 papers, and (5) and (4): 2460 papers (first 500 were screened). Future citations of discovered literature and within-article reference lists were also searched for enrichment.
Searches were conducted for papers published in 2000–2020 and 2021–2026 during April and May 2026. Most chosen articles were published between 2025 and 2026.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Open access or freely accessible peer-reviewed papers in English were included, although for three references, the corresponding author was contacted by email for a reprint. Only articles with psychometric instruments with more than one dimension were considered. Most qualitative papers were omitted, as were those focusing on occupational health/work/leadership/employee, disease, a specific health condition, excepting learning disabilities, and school students/children/young people. Therefore, most of the study group was adults.

2.4. Data Extraction, and Writing

Research questions were formulated prior to screening. Screening was conducted through manually searching for the above Boolean terms within electronic papers by using computer keys ‘cntrl and f’ together and reading around those sections in which they occurred. Papers were excluded that did not include multiple dimensions of wellbeing; were purely theoretical; those that mentioned the search terms superficially or in different contexts. Those papers that passed screening were fully read and sorted, and relevant information was categorized during full reads in Excel spreadsheets. A sample representative was collected for different countries around the world. Each selected paper was numbered, and a reference list formed. From summaries and original articles, three summary tables were constructed of 32 full texts assessed. The remaining 27 papers formed background/theoretical references and discussion syntheses. Reference list numbering was re-ordered to reflect writing, and the draft paper was formatted according to journal style template. No AI was used during this study.

2.5. Quality Assessment

For those selected papers that contained psychometric measures, a number of quality assessments were performed. Initial dimensions were distinguished through exploratory factor analyses with confirmatory factor analyses for hypothesis testing from a new or split sample of participants. For internal validity/accuracy, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were considered using pre-determined rules of acceptability. For reliability/consistency, a test re-test over time was necessary. Whether invariance occurred was included using demographic measures, for example, gender and/or age, or between cultural groups, when more than one was considered. Convergence/divergence/concurrence with other psychometric instrument testing was also examined. How the Likert scales were constructed, ordered, and their response styles were considered. Metric equivalence testing/weak measurement invariance between cultural groups was also noted. Other statistical method significances or non-significances were also noted using, for example, multiple step-wise regression, Chi-squared fits, ANOVA and similar, latent class analyses, item performance theory, Pearson correlations, Tucker’s phi, and t-tests.
In addition, close attention was made to assessing translation/back translation methods and whether lay participants (consultations with lay-cultural group members), experts, bilingual speakers, or anyone else involved in the development, validity, and testing of each instrument. Whether any changes were made in item questions to ensure linguistic equivalence from translations was noted. Also, conceptual equivalence/semantics in dimensions between translated frameworks for different cultural groups was considered. Indeed, such differences between Western-style dimensions of wellbeing and those applied across the world were also considered.

3. Results

Two supplementary tables summarized 21 examples of subjective dimensions of wellbeing that considered cultural group sensitivity (Table A1 and Table A2). The first concentrated on translations from English language of authorities’ dimensions of wellbeing models by date of publishing authorities’ framework (Table A1), while the second was regarding those created in the indigenous cultural group’s own, or principal language, including English, again by date of publication (Table A2). Each table provided information on cultural group; country; authority (date), number of dimensions and their names; items/question number, range on Likert scale, and year of publication/reference number. These combined tables were used to examine the frequency distribution of items across the 7 authorities and 10 indigenous dimensions of wellbeing frameworks (Figure 1).
The third Table (Table A3) summarized 10 examples of objective, empirical studies in date order of publication, linked to subjective dimensions of wellbeing frameworks containing similar headings to Table A1 and Table A2.

3.1. Choice of Subjective Dimensions of Wellbeing Measures

Authorities’ dimensions of wellbeing often overlap, with almost synonymous terms, for example, life satisfaction and meaning. However, sometimes there is no theoretical model guiding item selection. Thus, selecting disparate items to capture a large number of dimensions of subjective wellbeing needs a strong conceptual rationale. Otherwise, researchers will collect lots of information without logic or even formulate their research questions/hypotheses following data analyses—a HARKing approach (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). Statistical methods can be used to find the best discriminators between groups during pre-formed hypothesis testing. In publications, it is impossible to determine when hypotheses are generated. However, using an unusually large number of dimensions (which always results in a more significant fit) might suggest a HARKing approach.
In the current study, up to 15 dimensions were used after Marsh (2020) [14,15] with a minimum of three after Kinderman (2011) and initial OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) inputs [11,16,17]. Dimensions were mapped and amalgamated with similar meaning by checking authorities’ definitions and dictionary meanings across Table A1 and Table A2. Totals of each dimension with similar meanings were summed, resulting in 27 different dimensions (Figure 1).
Positive outcomes/relations with others had the highest frequency of 12. Emotional/happiness was second with a value of 11 occurrences. Life satisfaction/meaning in life was seventh in frequency with a value of seven occurrences (Figure 1). Interestingly, it was the indigenous subjective dimensions of wellbeing that had the lowest frequencies, yet such frameworks had up to 10–12 items [7,18,19]. These three examples were designed differently: bottom-up lay-consultation of the cultural group; a non-proven theoretical model; and from researchers who critically examined, amalgamated many authorities’ frameworks, and used an expert panel, but not lay-cultural groups (Figure 1).

3.2. Themes from Synthesis of Table A1 and Table A2

Five overlapping themes were distinguished for the 21 subjective dimensions of wellbeing frameworks considered: use of solid theoretical background; conceptual rationale guiding the framework developed; methodological limitations; links, convergence, divergence, and contradictions between different authorities and indigenous frameworks; conceptual rationale and theoretical considerations for interpretation of related findings.

3.2.1. Use of Solid Theoretical Background

Ten of the twelve papers in Table A1 used a solid theoretical background of the seven listed authorities [14,16,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] with four following Ryff (1989) [28] and two following Seligman (2011) [29]. The first two papers were considered a Hettler (1976)-type five-dimension framework [30] and, because they were used in an environmental setting, Hettler’s (1976) sixth dimension [30,31,32].
The ten indigenous-identified articles of Table A2 used different methods to produce their theoretical backgrounds from lay-cultural group consultations in interviews, focus groups, workshops, questionnaires, and pilots [7,33,34] to distilling lots of authorities’ articles with or without cultural group expert panel input [35,36] or a mixture of all [18,19,37,38].
Therefore, excepting three articles [7,33,34], all (Table A1 and Table A2) might be considered to have provided a solid theoretical background. However, statistical methods of exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis of other participants’ information following hypothesis construction, and continued consultations with lay-cultural groups may be viewed as a modification of a solid theoretical background. Arguably, this modification has a solid theoretical background in itself. That there were ten indigenous studies suggested that the cultural group was considered to be important in defining dimensions of wellbeing (research question 1). In any event, most researchers belonged to the cultural group that wished for an authorities’ framework to be used within their country.

3.2.2. Conceptual Rationale Guiding the Framework Developed

Some articles were designed to produce and test an authorities’ dimensions of wellbeing framework developed in the English language in a Western setting, within a different cultural group, for example, Japan [21], Bangladesh [22], Ghana, Africa [23], and China [25]. Others had a further purpose, for example, wellbeing in people with mild or borderline learning disabilities [20], perceived health in South African policemen [24], longitudinal research, psychological support in France [16], to assess mental wellbeing in Mexico [27], and for use by psychologists within two Italian islands [14]. Most researchers appreciated that cultural sensitivity occurs and therefore used non-verbatim translations, semantics, back-translations, bilingual speakers, and panels of experts to adapt authorities’ frameworks to assist comprehension and cognition. Thus, a recognition of the importance of cultural group upholds research question 1.
Indigenous dimensions of wellbeing frameworks sought to include both the design and development of psychometric instruments and for further purposes. For example, development of an internet digital wellbeing scale [38]; a theoretical spiritually-centered self-reflection framework for balanced living for Arabian Peninsula Muslims [18], a personal wellbeing scale in Hungary [36]; development of a holistic wellbeing framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, Australia [7]; the OECD ‘s ongoing development of subjective dimensions of wellbeing including ‘a good life’ discrimination for multiple nations/cultural groups [11]. Others had a further purpose, for example, dimensions of wellbeing frameworks were devised for the following: spiritual and religious practices in relation to mental health within, for example, Singapore [33], and Turkey [19]; aspects of Muslim religious travelers’ experiences from Malaysia for marketing purposes [37]; assessment of the local priorities and needs of a Kankuamo, Colombia, South American cultural group [34]; and also the needs of older USA women of different ethnic groups [35]. The breadth of divergence in dimensions of wellbeing frameworks suggested the importance of cultural group related to research question 1.

3.2.3. Methodological Limitations

Languages considered across the example studies included Arabic, Bangla, Bahasa, Chinese, Dutch, English, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Setswana, Spanish, and Turkish. Within authorities’ translations for other cultural groups, there were dimensions, items, and Likert scale ranges/ordering/positive and negative framing that were modified, reduced, and/or amalgamated, for example, Likert scaling was tested for size (four or five classes), deciding on five for Torres Straits, Islanders, and English-speaking Australian cultural groups [7]. However, lay-cultural group views were prioritized over statistical outcomes [7]. Also, negative items were reverse coded, modifying the Ryff (1989) framework, in Bangla [22,28].
Borderline internal validity/consistency was shown for environmental mastery for the Ryff (1989) framework in the Netherlands, Tokyo, Japan, Bangladesh, and Ghana, Africa (Table A1, [20,21,22,23,28]). Personal growth and purpose were not distinguishable for that cultural group of people with mild and borderline learning disability [20], while similarly, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and self-acceptance were amalgamated into two dimensions or overlapped [21,22]. Differences were present for the Ghanaian cultural group because profiles of environmental master, autonomy, and personal growth were skewed [23]. For the Seligman wellbeing framework [29] PERMA dimensions of wellbeing model, a meta-analysis of 23 countries, and the production of a Chinese framework suggested that again there was borderline internal validity/consistency, this time for the engagement dimension [25,26]. Even in an indigenous framework, dimensions needed reducing from four to three because the social dimension overlapped with mental and emotional dimensions [38].
A general limitation across many of the studies that single, concurrent, convergent, or divergent psychometric instruments may not have been validated in the language of that cultural group. Therefore, statistical testing of significance in convergence, divergence, or showing non-significance was not a valid comparison with the dimension of wellbeing framework under consideration.
There was an untested theoretical study that used lay-cultural group consultation to enable design and development of dimensions and items [18]. Another claimed its use in 30 different countries, yet no modifications in cultural cognition was mentioned [31,32]. Many were validated only once without test re-tests for longitudinal consistency [7,14,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Invariance in demographics, for example, gender and/or age, was proven in some studies [14,26,33,36] but either not tested or there was non-variance in others [7,16,19,22,23,27,31,32,38]. There was no invariance testing across cultural groups within the studies available. Therefore, even with the greatest of care in translation and semantics, multiple limitations across very many studies demonstrated the importance of cultural sensitivity of different groups of people (research question 1).

3.2.4. Links, Convergence, Divergence, and Contradictions Between Different Authorities and Indigenous Frameworks

From Figure 1, it was clear that those recent studies chosen for this narrative review were holistic, containing affective/hedonistic/emotional/happiness, eudemonic, and many other culturally linked dimensions, with life satisfaction being posited as lying between both [19]. Authorities’ numbers of items or dimensions did not increase or decrease in size as they were successively published, neither did those from indigenous cultural groups, nor did they converge or diverge over time. There were no differences in the number of items, dimensions between different authorities, or indigenous frameworks that were significant.
In some cases, indigenous and other authors wished to amplify the frameworks of English language, Western-type dimensions of Ryff (1989) and Seligman (2011), including a spirituality dimension [18,28,29,33,36,37]. In others, it was the lay-cultural groups who were consulted, chose, and refined dimensions of wellbeing. Such dimensions for those in poverty were important, for example, finances [18,37], health [34], and self-grown food [34]. For those under persecution, balance and control, racism, and worries [7] were included. It was not clear why the six-dimensional model of Adams (1997) was chosen to measure wellbeing in African policemen, and there was no confirmatory factor analysis [39]. Dimensions were reduced to wellness and non-wellness [24]. Across this theme, the importance of cultural groups was evident (research question 1).

3.2.5. Conceptual Rationale and Theoretical Considerations for Interpretation of Related Findings

Multiple studies challenge core ideas about how dimensions of wellbeing frameworks apply to people of different cultural groups. Studies that used translations of authorities’ dimensions of wellbeing frameworks for different cultural groups or for a particular purpose within a cultural group reported some difficulties. These were related to differences in cognizance and meaning of words and concepts for each dimension and item questions. Indeed, the concept of holistic wellbeing had huge differences in meaning for different cultural groups.
For example, for the Ryff (1989) framework, the three dimensions, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and self-acceptance, merged into two dimensions and were thought to be related to the Eastern culture of the self being interdependent rather than independent [21,28]. Removal of environmental mastery in a quasi-Eastern culture (Bangladesh) was also interpreted as not individualism, but rather adaptability, endurance, and relational negotiation [22]. It was also thought that dimensions of wellbeing were reorganized and reinterpreted in response to social structure, cultural values, and lived realities [22]. In an English-speaking West African, Ghanaian culture group, cognition of dimensions and items was not questioned. However, it was posited that these meanings were completely different due to cultural norms of collectivism, relationality, spirituality, and psychosocial aspects, such as dimensional profiles of autonomy, personal group, and environmental mastery [23]. Translational bias and misunderstanding of item questions was thought to reduce a six-dimensional model to two in South Africa [24]. For the Seligman (2011) PERMA framework, the dimension engagement might be interpreted differently across different cultural groups [25,26,29]. This was ascribed to differences in Western cultures versus Eastern cultures in terms of individualism versus collectivism, locus of agency-self-choice of tasks versus the requirement to fit cultural norms and differential expression of emotions [25,26]. The Spanish translation of the Dahl (2020) framework for a Mexican cultural group suggested the insight dimension might demonstrate a cognitive reappraisal process—introspective judgement, rather than purely relational sentiment [27,40]. For the Marsh (2020) framework in Italian, some items were adjusted for cognition, however, the clear-thinking dimension will need future modification [15,27]. These authors expounded a need for multidimensional profiles of specific wellbeing factors rather than a single, global score. They believed the latter provides better information about the nature of an intervention’s effects, and strengths and weaknesses of clients with whom to focus providing interventions [14].
Most indigenous dimensions of wellbeing frameworks were initially designed and developed for specific cultural groups and their purposes. The strengths of most were that a mixed method approach, use of lay-cultural group consultations, and statistical methods, led to cultural group, involvement, cognition, and good fit. For example, there was consultation through yarning circles, development through focus group discussions and pilot testing of Likert scales with lay-cultural groups, and workshops [7,18,33,34,35]. Those scales developed without lay-cultural group consultation (Hungary and Turkey) had either low dimension number and high item number or high dimension number and lower item number; authors of both studies wished for cross-cultural validation [19,36].
An example of international dimensions in a wellbeing framework that encompasses 38 countries including some of the countries containing those cultural group examples given above is the OECD [11]. This organization cautions comparisons between different nations and takes great care with linguistic equivalence—translation and cognitive testing—to ensure sentiment alignment across different languages and acknowledges bias limits during comparisons. In its experimental work it is examining emotional, spiritual, and low arousal harmony concepts to capture non-Western or alternative definitions of ‘a good life’. It also tests discrimination and predictive validity, for example, overlapping with mental health, recall bias, randomizes item questions, and notes cognitive fatigue [11]. Taken together this thematic analysis, and synthesis demonstrates the importance of cultural groups in defining dimensions of wellbeing (research question 1).

3.3. Themes from Synthesis of Table A3

Few examples of linked subjective and objective dimensions of wellbeing frameworks, in relation to cultural sensitivity, were apparent from literature searching. However, five overlapping themes were again distinguished: use of solid theoretical background; conceptual rationale guiding the framework developed; methodological limitations; links, convergence, divergence, and contradictions between different authorities and indigenous frameworks; conceptual rationale, and theoretical considerations for interpretation of related findings.

3.3.1. Use of Solid Theoretical Background

Two studies used a theoretical background of individual wellbeing model(s) to which cultural factors and/or objective measures were added without lay-cultural group involvement [41,42]. One modified five scales of psychosocial/contextual wellbeing to which sociodemographic objective measures were added, without lay-cultural group involvement [43]. Two linked studies developed their own frameworks [44,45] using lay-cultural group involvement. Ongoing national and international studies use their own measures [46] or were initially based on the Stiglitz–Sen–Fitoussi initiative to move beyond gross domestic product (GPD) of a country to measure wellbeing including lay-cultural group participation [47,48,49,50]. Thus, all examples chosen included the possibility that subjectively defined dimensions of wellbeing and objective measures were linked in terms of their cultural sensitivity (question 2). They also involved, in part, defining cultural group importance in wellbeing models (research question 1).

3.3.2. Conceptual Rationale Guiding the Framework Developed

Two studies provided new theoretical frameworks [41,45], while four applied their studies to real world situations [42,43,44,46]. For the latter, for example, they were as follows: factors contributing to objective and subjective wellbeing of Punjab women and the role women’s empowerment in women’s wellbeing [42]; identifying the psychosocial and sociodemographic factors that influenced the wellbeing of Portuguese migrants [43]; cultural group challenges from their environment [44]; the importance of hope [46]. In addition, national and international organizations continue to have wellbeing dashboards, for example, UK ONS (Office for National Statistics) “What works well” [47], Australian “Measuring what matters” [48], OECD “Wellbeing data monitor for a better life” [49], and UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) “Wellbeing here and now” [50], are in the public domain, excepting UNECE, and are used for very many different purposes, including those internationally examining cultural sensitivity. For example, the UK ONS dashboard uses complementary dimensions rather than interchangeable proxies, evaluating both external welfare resources and internal human experiences. Conceptual rationales were very different across studies, all considered linkage, either within a particular cultural group [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48], or across nations [49,50].

3.3.3. Methodological Limitations

Excepting national and international organizations [47,48,49,50] and a long-term study [46], research was cross-sectional with no longitudinal test re-tests. Therefore, it was impossible to infer causation [41,42,43,44]. Also, in the latter studies, there was no invariance testing [41,42,43,44]. The long-term study suggested that responses of Australian cultural groups with different expectations, for example, rich vs. poor, or of deprived individuals compared to more privileged might differ [46]. For national studies, for example the UK ONS, limitations include data integration, subjective metrics/self-reporting bias, declining survey response rates, difficulties capturing small-area variations, and temporal consistency/time lags in longitudinal data processing [47]. In Australia, there was much consultation across the nation, but it was critiqued that representation from hard-to-reach, and indigenous cultural groups meant 30 participatory areas, including mental health, social connections, and feelings of safety, were not adequate [48].
There are many methodological limitations within international organizations’ wellbeing studies [49,50]. For the OECD, methods face limits due to cultural biases in self-reporting, difficulties in aggregating disparate data types, and challenges in establishing direct causal policy links [49]. Combining subjective and objective theoretical approaches introduces limitations including measurement gaps and lower reliability coefficients for internal validity compared to traditional economic data. The UNECE framework assumes good living conditions create the foundation for a good life, and for subjective wellbeing, it assumes people are the best judges of their own life quality; these might not always be true. Data disaggregation gaps, cultural bias, and frequency mismatches are also limitations [50].

3.3.4. Links, Convergence, Divergence, and Contradictions Between Different Authorities and Indigenous Frameworks

For four indigenous studies, it proved challenging to make comparisons [41,42,43,44]. In the first for Indonesia, universal, objective factors were marital status, health, education level, income, and employment. Overall, cultural dimensions were trust, sense of community, and self-construal. The wellbeing model included basic needs, social relations, acceptance, and spirituality [41]. In the second for Punjab women, universal, objective factors were income, assets, residence, education, safety and security, and social networking. The wellbeing framework included life satisfaction and happy pulse indicator scales [42]. In the third for Portuguese migrants, objective/sociodemographic factors were gender, health, marital status, qualifications, professional status, residence, and age since emigrating. Psychosocial wellbeing indictors were satisfaction with social ties, connection, cohesion, acculturation, and adaption [43]. Fourth for Ghanian households, objective dimensions were expenditure, poverty, basic needs, and deprivation, while subjective domains were financial stress and unhappiness [44]. It might be suggested that universal objective factors depended on environmental stability, and measures around financial security, and health. Overlap between objective and subjective dimensions was observed for basic needs and finances [41,44].
As mentioned above, two national and two international organizations initially based their frameworks on the Stiglitz–Sen–Fitoussi initiative [47,48,49,50]. OECD and UNECE treat wellbeing as multidimensional, combining objective material conditions/universal factors with subjective life evaluations. Three have accessible dashboards with objective and subjective wellbeing values cited together without any detailed numerical interpretations [47,48,49]. There are 60 indicators for the UK ONS [47], 50 for Australia [48], 80 for OECD [49], and 78 for UNECE [50]. The OECD focuses broadly on socio-economic policy progress for member countries, whereas the UNECE targets official statistical harmonization and sustainable development tracking across the pan-European region. For the OECD, contradictions arise because top-down objective indicators selected by experts often clash with how individuals internally experience, adapt to, or weight their own life circumstances [49]. Language differences, response styles, and cultural norms alter how survey scales are used across different OECD countries [49]. UNECE includes cultural sensitivity by allowing national adaptation of indicators, recognizing that aspirations, values, and the framing of life evaluations shift across diverse cultural contexts [50]. Taken together, these studies clearly exemplified the importance inclusion of cultural sensitivity, which linked objective and subjective dimensions of wellbeing (research questions 1 and 2).

3.3.5. Conceptual Rationale, and Theoretical Considerations for Interpretation of Related Findings

Only one indigenous study linked universal/objective, cultural, and subjective dimensions of wellbeing [41]. It proved universal and cultural factors were linked, as were universal and wellbeing dimensions without spirituality. Also, universal factors were linked to wellbeing [41]. Interestingly, negative wellbeing was linked to independent self-construal. Therefore theoretically, there were underlying associations between universal factors, cultural factors, and the distinct multi-dimensions of wellbeing in an Indonesian cultural group [41].
Because indigenous studies were so different, no further synthesis was possible, so they are presented individually under this theme. Another study linked objective and subjective dimensions of wellbeing of women, suggesting age, health conditions, household financial status, possession of assets, and woman empowerment as significant indicators of the wellbeing of women with the exception of education that negatively affected their subjective wellbeing [42]. Here, dimensions of wellbeing included how people think and feel about their lives, what to do to have better lives, and networking with other people and organizations [42].
A further study regarding migrants suggested practical implications for interventions, such as the operationalization of the social dimension of health, including access to care, community belonging programs and culturally and linguistically-sensitive ‘wellbeing spaces’, as well as attention to professional mismatch, and working conditions [43].
The final ingenious study [44] suggested that challenging environments were most important in defining subjective wellbeing. Theoretical considerations revealed a strict spatial dichotomy: inland farmers were “poor but happy”, while coastal urbanites were “non-poor but unhappy”. Linked to this study was a new dimension of wellbeing model designed to explore environment–wellbeing associations [45]. The Environmental and Comprehensive Wellbeing framework assessed multiscale climate, landscape, and policy impacts, providing a database for others to make comparisons [45].
For national wellbeing frameworks, for example, the UK ONS “What Works Well” combines direct subjective self-assessments with objective societal conditions. It assumes national progress cannot be measured by economic output alone, requiring a holistic evaluation of human, social, and environmental capitals alongside material wealth. Therefore, it acknowledges non-material human drivers, including social capital, agency, and democratic trust, as core components of a thriving society rather than mere byproducts of economic growth [47]. The Australian “Measuring What Matters” dashboard provides a multi-dimensional view of national progress beyond traditional economic metrics like GDP [48]. It challenged traditional welfare economics by asserting that social, environmental, and subjective factors are co-equal components of national progress alongside material wealth [48].
Essentially, the two examples of international organizations’ wellbeing frameworks are similar across this theme. The OECD objective metrics show what resources people have, while subjective dimensions reveal how people experience those conditions, allowing policymakers to see if actual living standards translate into genuine human wellbeing [49]. Theoretically, economic growth is only instrumental to human flourishing, requiring policies to target both environmental/resource inputs and individual perceptions of a good life [49]. The UNECE also relies on a multidimensional model combining objective living conditions and subjective life experiences [50]. This dual approach ensures that policies capture both factual resources and human perceptions. Theoretically, this dual approach shifts policy evaluation past GDP by recognizing that material abundance does not automatically equal human fulfilment [50].
Taken together, these results highlighted that cultural groups defined dimensions of wellbeing and that there were links between subjective dimensions of wellbeing models and objective measures that were culturally sensitive (research questions 1 and 2).

4. Discussion

Considering the breadth of interest in subjective, objective, and comprehensive dimensions of wellbeing, it is surprising that there is so little in the evidence base concerning their cultural sensitivity, except international organizations, which are beginning to link subjective and objective dimensions cross-culturally [11,49]. A comparison between differing models for subjective dimensions of wellbeing suggests that not only was the country of origin of the framework important for culturally sensitive interpretation, but also which dimensions, items, and Likert scale size/ordering are initially included in the model/framework or instrument (Table A1 and Table A2, [7,11,14,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]). Perhaps indigenous research, with theoretically-defined cultural models, and lay-cultural group involvement is not published in major English-language journals [51].
In any event, synthesizing results by considering five overlapping themes (use of solid theoretical background; conceptual rationale guiding the framework developed; methodological limitations; links, convergence, divergence and contradictions between different authorities and indigenous frameworks, and conceptual rationale, and theoretical considerations for interpretation of related findings) demonstrates how subjective dimensions of wellbeing models are markedly affected by cultural group. Such dimensions were overlapping [20] and therefore amalgamated into fewer dimensions [21,22], and/or there was less internal validity, for example, dimensions of wellbeing of environmental mastery [20,21,22,23] and engagement [25,26]. Because authorities’ [15,17,28,29,30,39,40] theoretical frameworks are designed for use in Western cultures, environmental mastery focused on being in control of one’s own destiny. However, in the East, it is considered that an individual fits smoothly into relational and environmental contexts, so it is less important. Similarly, in the West, engagement might be interpreted as goal-directed striving, while in the East, it is thought to involve low arousal collective attunement again being less important than other dimensions.
There are examples in the literature that were designed with a more culture-fair lens to produce conceptual models of subjective wellbeing based on earlier published data sets [52,53,54]. The stronger a country was characterized by Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic (WEIRD) society factors, the more those people believed in a high level of happiness ideal, independent of their actual happiness. Such a finding was linked to benign ecological conditions; however, researchers noted that not all cultural groups wish to maximize happiness, and international organizations need to note this [52].
Therefore, comparing Western with Eastern cultural values, within dimensions frameworks, is not straightforward because each cultural group is unique based on traditions and community values. It is posited that in the East, collectivist cultures placed more emphasis on eudaimonic orientation, self-transcendence, interdependence, and contextualization through self-cultivation to a hopeful harmonious state. In the West, individualistic cultural groups relied on hedonistic orientation, self-enhancement, independence, decontextualization through self-expression to hopeful authenticity [55]. However, there is much migration across the world where social dimension of health, including access to care, community belonging programs, and culturally- and linguistically-sensitive ‘wellbeing spaces’, as well as attention to professional mismatch, and working conditions were considered important [43]. In addition, cultural values within the African continent were complex depending on the North/South/East/West divide [56]. Only three African cultural groups are considered in this study [23,24,44], and therefore, no generalizations are possible.
There are published studies that adopted a lay-cultural group bottom-up approach leading to the detection of cross-cultural similarities and differences [57,58,59]. For example, for satisfaction with life scale, comparing German and Chinese students’ responses qualitatively, those from Germany interpreted item 1 as basic needs fulfillment, while those from China understood economic wealth/ good living conditions [57]. For item 2, both sets of students agreed; however, translation bias was detected resulting in lower significance and therefore reliability [57]. For the subjective happiness scale the verbatim translation of happiness has different meanings in these two languages, which resulted in a lack of invariance. It was suggested that wellbeing was experienced differently, resulting in a culturally specific subjective experience. To improve understanding in these two languages, re-wording of these instruments was recommended [57]. English translations of authorities into other languages for use in other cultural groups of authorities’ dimensions of wellbeing frameworks suggest that existing dimensions of wellbeing frameworks might be inappropriate (Table A1, [14,16,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,31,32]). Cognitive misunderstandings of translations confused participants [24]. Consultation with stakeholders, expert views, back-translation, and validity and reliability evaluation also resulted in inappropriate frameworks. This is because different cultural groups hold diverse values and meanings for the descriptions of dimensions, which will differ when translated. Therefore, dimensions of wellbeing may not accurately reflect the items/questions that defined each one. No cross-cultural studies were evident for inclusion in this narrative review. However, a large lay-cultural group bottom-up approach occurs in indigenous studies [7,18,19,33,34,37,38].
Recall-bias may vary between cultural groups. Certainly,’ just in time’ ecological momentary assessments to minimize recall bias, triangulated with biomedical/ physiological and behavioral indicators might increase the objectivity of dimensions of wellbeing models for cultural groups within and between countries [60]. In this study, it is apparent that recall-bias is considered in national and international studies [47,48,49,50]. Another form of bias using Likert scales may differ between cultural groups. Eastern respondents reported their answers near mid-point, whilst those from the USA used the whole scales. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the USA fit was better, although the internal consistency was adequate for adults in the USA, Taiwan, and South Korea [61]. Such response biases are not demonstrated in the example studies of Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3.
There are no significant trends in the number or type of wellbeing model dimension part defined by indigenous cultural groups. However, they are important for cultural sensitivity within that particular cultural group (Table A2, [7,11,18,19,33,34,35,36,37,38]). Therefore, research question 1 is substantiated through comparing Western authorities’ derived dimensions of wellbeing frameworks across other cultural groups, including those frameworks derived and validated in the country of origin (indigenous) and demonstrating the divergence of subjective dimensions of wellbeing used in their construction (Figure 1).
The second research question regarding linking subjectively defined dimensions of wellbeing models and objective empirical measures in terms of their cultural sensitivity is less clearly defined, despite a huge literature search. Similarly, five themes are used to analyze contents of Table A3. Only one study overtly includes three dimensions of cultural sensitivity: trust, sense of community, and self-construal. All are considered important in Eastern cultures. Independent self-construal is interdependence of social harmony, relational balance, and low arousal emotional states. In this study, negative wellbeing was linked to independent self-construal. Objective/universal factors, cultural factors, and the distinct multi-dimensions of wellbeing were all linked [41].
It is posited that research deploying an exclusively objective approach may have omitted information on how collective community norms could promote sustainable activities, while a subjective approach may have overlooked requirements for more-immediate material support [44,45]. Therefore, universal, objective, empirical dimensions of wellbeing, and subjective dimensions of wellbeing together inform cultural sensitivity [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. All are evaluated according to the established themes suggesting linkage between objective and subjective wellbeing in separate cultural groups [41,42,43,44,45,46]. For example, for a cultural group of Indonesian adults and Pakistani women, subjective dimensions of wellbeing outweighed objective when basic needs and income were considered [41,42]. However, for Portuguese migrants across the world, the objective dimension, health, was of overall importance [43]. In contrast, the environment of vulnerable cultural groups, for example, in Ghanian Volta Delta, Africa, was most important resulting in low objective, but high subjective wellbeing [44,45]. Overall, the dimensions of subjective and objective wellbeing, evaluated according to the established themes, are always relevant and linked to the indigenous cultural groups, and environments in which they were created [41,42,43,44,45,46].
The results section provides significant findings in relation to national and international organizations dimensions of wellbeing frameworks within the five themes [47,48,49,50]. Across nations cultural group definitions of dimensions and their sensitivity is distinguished across country and regional offices when information-gathering [49,50]. Researchers successfully demonstrated that for a prefecture-level wellbeing index in Japan, which applied the OECD’s Better Life Index, lower or higher comprehensive wellbeing scores, were dependent on prefecture area/cultural group [62]. Caution making distinctions between similar dimensions for different cultural groups is highlighted across these organizations. What looks like a problem in one culture might be a normal, healthy behavior in another, for example, labelling diverse cultural single, emotional pressures as unhealthy [7,44,45]. Wellbeing depends on cultural groups’ social setting, history, and environment. Therefore, it is not necessarily possible to separate health from cultural roots. In the future, more cross-cultural comparisons will be appearing, especially for high income OECD countries because of their new cultural sensitivity framework [11].
It is posited that dimensions of wellbeing need to be studied through inter- or transdisciplinary methods to understand the complex nature of bio-psycho-social-ecological wellbeing and to promote health and wellness [63]. Also, pluralistic measures including hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing dimensions, also need to include higher levels of scale resulting in social wellbeing, connectedness to community, across cultural groups, governance, and nature [64]. It is clear from this narrative review that there is much more research needed to understand and predict the cultural sensitivity of dimensions of subjective wellbeing linked to objective measures.
Objective measures of wellbeing might be developed in the future for individuals, and cultural groups by considering levels of physical exercise, blood pressure, pulse, cortisol, and catecholamine levels in blood samples and sleep quality [10]. However, as yet, there are no definitive measures, neither are they successfully linked to subjective dimensions of wellbeing. Other data sources for both subjective and objective dimensions of wellbeing are being implemented [13]. More studies are necessary for increased accuracy, fairness, and better support across cultural groups.
In addition, General Procrustes analysis (GPA; [65]) and/or machine learning [66] may be the way forward for defining cultural sensitivity of subjective dimensions of wellbeing. A speculative future direction might be GPA which produces average cultural sensitivity profiles that grouped together will be distinguishable from other groupings. Certainly, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), which requires similarly structured, number of dimensions of wellbeing, that have similar meanings for each dimension, and items/questions across cultural groups, for cross-cultural analysis, as suggested [67], is often not possible.

Strengths and Limitations

Summarizing a sparce and variegated set of papers drawn from a huge screen of available literature is a strength. However, as a single reviewer, the quality assessment may have produced author bias in the 32 chosen for inclusion in Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3. Cultural sensitivity is a developing area of research, and while the strength of the conclusions may be limited by single authorship, this topic of dimensions of wellbeing measures is important and timely.

5. Conclusions

This narrative review attempted to discover whether cultural groups are important in defining dimensions of wellbeing. By providing examples from across the world, within the current limited literature, two research questions relating the importance of objective/subjective dimensions of wellbeing and cultural group linkage were answered. Ideally, subjective dimensions of wellbeing need to be created, validated, and reliably evaluated within the indigenous cultural groups they are intended, including consultations with lay-cultural groups at all stages of design and implementation, rather than using frameworks that did not originate from within an indigenous language, specifically the English language. Future General Procrustes analysis is speculated to allow cultural groups to retain their own subjective dimensions yet be open to cross-cultural comparisons. Subjective dimensions of wellbeing need to be used in association with objective measures to improve cultural sensitivity for national and international policy-making to improve world wellness according to, and across, cultural groups for increased accuracy, fairness, and better support. Much more research in this area is appropriate.

Funding

This research received no funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created during this narrative review. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Phil Brain for suggesting Generalized Procrustes analysis and editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Dimensions of wellbeing frameworks created by authorities, in English, translated into cultural group languages.
Table A1. Dimensions of wellbeing frameworks created by authorities, in English, translated into cultural group languages.
Cultural GroupCountryDimensions of Wellbeing FrameworkItems/Range-Likert ScaleYear, Ref no.
balanced representation adultsUKafter Hettler (1976)-6-physical, emotional, cognitive, social, spiritual (environmental) [30]23/0–1002023, [31] & 2026, [32]
adults with mild/borderline intellectual functioningNetherlandsafter Ryff (1989)-6, eudaimonic-autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, personal growth, positive relations with others, self-acceptance [28]54/1–5 2021, [20]
mid-life adultsTokyo, Japanibid.42/1–52020, [21]
university studentsBangladeshibid.18/1–7 2026, [22]
English-speaking university studentsGhana, Africaibid.18/ 1–72026, [23]
policemenSouth Africaafter Adams (1997)-6, physical, spiritual, psychological, social, emotional, intellectual [39]36/1–6 2007, [24]
7% different cultural groups, adults23 countriesPERMA, after Seligman (2011)-5, positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning in life, and accomplishments [29]15 or 23/ or both/
1–10		2025, [25]
adultsChinaibid.23/1–10 2025, [26]
adults and older adultsFranceafter Kinderman (2011)-3, physical wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, and social relationships [17]24/1–52025, [16]
young adult Spanish- speaking university students Mexicoafter Dahl (2020)-4, awareness, connection, insight, purpose [40]17/1–5 2025, [27]
adultsislands of Sicily and Sardinia, Italyafter Marsh (2020)-15, autonomy, clear thinking, competence, stability, empathy, engagement, meaning, optimism, positive emotions, positive relations, prosocial behavior, resilience, self-acceptance, self-esteem and vitality [15]48/1–8 2023, [14]
Table A2. Dimensions of wellbeing frameworks created by cultural groups, national and international organizations.
Table A2. Dimensions of wellbeing frameworks created by cultural groups, national and international organizations.
Cultural GroupCountryDimensions of Wellbeing ModelItems/Range-Likert ScaleYear, Ref no.
adult, English-speaking, Chinese, Malaysian and Indian cultural groupsSingapore6, positive mental health wellbeing determination-general coping, personal growth and autonomy, spirituality, interpersonal skills, emotional support, global affect47/1–62011, [33]
Bahasa-speaking Muslim adultsMalaysia6, physical, spiritual, emotional, social, intellectual, and financial wellbeing26/ unknown2023, [37]
young adultsIndia4, mental, physical, emotional (social)20/unknown2023, [38]
Muslim adultsArab peninsular11, spiritual, intellectual, personal, emotional, physical, relational, communal, financial, professional, recreational, and digital wellbeing11/1–102025, [18]
Kankuamo adultsColombia, South America7, relating-to others and one’s emotions, guiding principles, choice of healthcare, self-grown food, community contributions, personal agency and respect and equality28/1–5 2025, [34]
older womenUSA9, hedonic: life enjoyment, happiness, life satisfaction, quality of life and eudaimonic: personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, self-mastery, self-control varied with scale used2025, [35]
adultsHungary4, internal: emotional, psychological, external: social, and spiritual17/1–62026, [36]
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults Australia10, balance & control, hope & resilience, caring for others, culture & country, spirit & identity, feeling valued, connection with others, access, racism & worries, pride & strength32/52026, [7]
adolescent, young adult, adultTurkey12, eudaimonic-reflecting values, relatedness, self-acceptance, life satisfaction, competence, and personal
growth; hedonic-vitality, happiness, & affective evaluations regarding life 		22/1–5 2026, [19]
all adults38 countries, OECD considered3, life evaluation, affect and eudaimonia as
individual, relational and social 		summary scale: 4/1–102025, [11]
Table A3. Dimensions of wellbeing frameworks and objective measures created by cultural groups, national, and international organizations.
Table A3. Dimensions of wellbeing frameworks and objective measures created by cultural groups, national, and international organizations.
Cultural GroupCountryObjective MeasuresLinking with Subjective ScalesYear/Ref no.
83% of Java sub-cultural adult groupIndonesiauniversal factors: marital status, health, education level, income and employment, and overall cultural dimensions-trust, sense of community, and self-construalfrom Maulana (2019/2020)-4, basic needs, social relation, acceptance, and spirituality, 20 items and 5-point Likert scale2021, [41]
women of working ageRawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan universal factors: income, assets, residence, education, health, safety and security, and social networking10-point item scale of life-satisfaction, and happy pulse indicators index2024, [42]
migrated adults from PortugalNorth, Central, South America, Asian countries, Africa and New ZealandSociodemographic/contextual dimensions: gender, health, marital status, qualifications, professional status, residence, age and years since emigrating psychosocial dimensions: 5-satisfaction with social ties, connection, cohesion, acculturation and adaptation2025, [43]
householdsGhanian Volta Delta, Africaexpenditure, poverty,
basic needs deprivation		3, life domains: financial stress, unhappiness2024, [44] and 2026 [45]
adultsUK ONS9-6 items per dimension: our relationships, health, what we do, where we live, personal finance, education & skills, economy, governance, environment4, life satisfaction, worthwhileness, happiness & anxiety, range 0–102026, [47]
aged 15–81Australia5, education, economic & employment outcomes, perceived, and objective health3, hope, life satisfaction & happiness2026, [46]
adultsAustralia5, health, security, sustainability, cohesive, and prosperous, with 50 indicators across both30, not accessible2025, [48]
adults32 OECD countries, & 9 partner countries10, income & wealth, jobs & earnings, housing, health status, knowledge & skills, work-life balance, safety, social connections, civic engagement, environmental quality3, life evaluation, affect and eudaimonia as individual, relational and social feeding into life satisfaction/negative effect/balance theme of Better Life Index2026/5 [11,49]
adultsUNECE56 countries9, material living conditions, work & leisure, housing, health, knowledge & skills, physical safety, social connections, civic engagement, environmental conditions 3, overall life satisfaction, happiness, and meaning2025, [50]

References

  1. World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary of Terms 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038349 (accessed on 24 April 2026).
  2. Kauppi, K.; Vanhala, A.; Roos, E.; Torkki, P. Assessing the structures and domains of wellness models: A systematic review. Int. J. Wellbeing 2023, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Schonhardt, S.; Sullivan, S.; Shisler Marshall, R.A. Focused review of multidimensional well-being assessments. J. Wellness 2023, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. AlNujaidi, H.Y.; Al-Rayes, S.A.; Alumran, A. The evolution of wellness models: Implications for women’s health and well-being. Int. J. Womens Health 2025, 17, 597–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Betley, E.C.; Sigouin, A.; Pascua, P.; Cheng, S.H.; MacDonald, K.I.; Arengo, F.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.; Caillon, S.; Isaac, M.E.; Jupiter, S.D.; et al. Assessing human well-being constructs with environmental and equity aspects: A review of the landscape. People Nat. 2023, 5, 1756–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Wilkie, L.; Fisher, Z.; Geidel, A.; Goodall, I.; Kamil, S.; Davies, E.; Kemp, A.H. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2026, 10, 715–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Howard, K.; Garvey, G.; Anderson, K.; Dickson, M.; Viney, R.; Ratcliffe, J.; Howell, M.; Gall, A.; Cunningham, J.; Whop, L.J.; et al. Development of the What Matters 2 Adults (WM2A) wellbeing measure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults. Soc. Sci. Med. 2024, 347, 116694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. World Health Organization. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals. (accessed on 24 April 2026).
  9. Zhang, W.; Balloo, K.; Hosein, A.; Medland, E. A scoping review of well-being measures: Conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being. BMC Psychol. 2024, 12, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Okvitawanli, A.; Hakim, M.A.; Aryanto, C.B.; Maulana, H. Psychological well-being measures. In Reference Module in Social Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Smith, C.; Frieling, M.; Percival, H.; Mahoney, J. Globally Inclusive Measures of Subjective Well-Being: Updated Evidence to Inform National Data Collections; OECD Papers on Well-Being and Inequalities, No.35.; OECD: Paris, France, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Swarbrick, M.; Di Bello, A.; Eissenstat, S.J.; Nemec, P.B.; Hien, D.A.; Gill, K.J. Factor structure, reliability, and construct validity of the wellness inventory. Psychiatr. Serv. 2025, 76, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Voukelatou, V.; Gabrielli, L.; Miliou, I.; Cresci, S.; Sharma, R.; Tesconi, M.; Pappalardo, L. Measuring objective and subjective well-being: Dimensions and data sources. Int. J. Data Sci. Anal. 2021, 11, 279–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Scalas, L.F.; Lodi, E.; Magnano, P.; Marsh, H.W. Towards a multidimensional measure of well-being: Cross-cultural support through the Italian validation of the well-being profile. BMC Psychol. 2023, 11, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Marsh, H.W.; Huppert, F.A.; Donald, J.N.; Horwood, M.S.; Sahdra, B.K. The well-being profile (WB-Pro): Creating a theoretically based multidimensional measure of well-being to advance theory, research, policy, and practice. Psychol. Assess. 2020, 32, 294–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  16. Megherbi-Moulay, O.; Jullian, B.; Franchitto, N.; Igier, V.; Sordes, F. Transcultural adaptation and validation in French of the BBC Subjective Well-Being Scale (BBC-SWB) in the general population. App Res. Qual. Life 2025, 20, 851–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Kinderman, P.; Schwannauer, M.; Pontin, E.; Tai, S. The development and validation of a general measure of wellbeing: The BBC well-being scale. Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Khunji, A.; Ebrahim, F. A proposed 11-dimensional well-being framework: A spiritually centred self-reflection model for balanced living. Middle East J. Posit. Psychol. 2025, 11, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  19. Arslan, G.; Coşkun, M. Measuring eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing: Development and validation of the Holistic Wellbeing Measure. J. Pers. Assess. 2026, 108, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  20. Van Herwaarden, A.; Peters-Scheffer, N.C.; Didden, R. Development and psychometric assessment of a psychological well-being instrument for adults with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2022, 121, 104151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Sasaki, N.; Watanabe, K.; Imamura, K.; Nishi, D.; Karasawa, M.; Kan, C.; Ryff, C.D.; Karawakmi, N. Japanese version of the 42-item psychological well-being scale (PWBS-42): A validation study. BMC Psychol. 2020, 8, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Akter, S.H.; Hossain, S. Translation and adaptation of psychological well-being scale (PWBS) and its psychometric validation. Asia Pac. J. Edu Soc. 2026, 14, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Essel, D.W.; Quansah, F.; Ntumi, S.; Bonsi, F.H.; Larbi, L.S.; Ishaaq, A.-R. Uncovering heterogeneity in the measurement of psychological well-being in non-western culture: A latent profile analysis of Ghanaian undergraduates. Brain Behav. 2026, 16, e71216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Rothmann, S.; Ekkerd, J. The validation of the perceived wellness survey in the South African Police Service. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2007, 33, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Karabacak Çelik, A. A reliability generalization meta-analysis of the PERMA-profiler. Soc. Indic. Res. 2025, 177, 1027–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Nie, Y.-Z.; Zhang, X.; Hong, N.-W.; Zhou, C.; Huang, Q.-Q.; Cao, S.-Y.; Wang, C. Psychometric validation of the PERMA-profiler for well-being in Chinese adults. Acta Psychol. 2024, 246, 104248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Charles-Leija, H.; Kral, T.R.A.; Tatar, R.; Davidson, R.J.; Castro, C.G.; Ballesteros-Valdés, R.; Okamoto, M. Healthy minds index, Spanish version of core dimensions of wellbeing. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0328361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Ryff, C.D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 1069–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Seligman, M.E.P. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hettler, W. The Six Dimensions of Wellness. National Wellness Institute. 1976. Available online: https://members.nationalwellness.org/page/six_dimensions (accessed on 17 August 2026).
  31. Irvine, K.N.; Fisher, J.C.; Bentley, P.R.; Nawrath, M.; Dallimer, M.; Austen, G.E.; Fish, R.D.; Davies, Z.G. BIO-WELL: The development and validation of a human wellbeing scale that measures responses to biodiversity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 85, 101921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Jones, F.; Fisher, J.C.; Austen, G.E.; Irvine, K.N.; Dallimer, M.; Croager, L.; Nawrath, M.; Fish, R.D.; Davies, Z.G. Testing the BIO-WELL Scale in situ: Measuring human wellbeing responses to biodiversity within forests. J. Environ. Psychol. 2026, 109, 102897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Vaingankar, J.A.; Subramaniam, M.; Chong, S.; Abdin, E.; Edelen, M.O.; Picco, L.; Lim, Y.W.; Phua, M.Y.; Chua, B.Y.; Tee, J.Y.S. The positive mental health instrument: Development and validation of a culturally relevant scale in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2011, 9, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Van der Boor, C.F.; Agudelo-Ortiz, D.M.; Sánchez Díaz, G.C.; Molina-Bulla, C.I.; Guevara Morales, L.J.; Chiumento, A.; Aponte Canencio, D.M.; White, R. The intercultural development and validation of the Indigenous ’Escala de Bienestar Kankuamo’ (Kankuamo Well-Being Scale): A capability approach. Transcult. Psychiatry 2025, 62, 722–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Rillamas-Sun, E.; Woods, N.F.; Pike, K.C.; LaCroix, A.Z.; Zaslavsky, O.; Dobra, A.; Stefanick, M.L.; Cochrane, B.B. Latent class analysis of well-being in older women. J. Womens Health 2025, 34, 1273–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Oláh, A.; Bagdi, B.; Vargha, A. The spectral model of personal wellbeing and the validity of the Personal Wellbeing Spectral questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 2026, 16, 1719574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  37. Hassan, S.H.; Ramayah, T.; Qureshi, M.I. Elucidating well-being measurement from the wellness perspective of religious travelers. World 2023, 4, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Mathew, J.; Nair, S.; Gomes, R.; Mulasi, A.; Yadav, P. Design and validation of the digital well-being scale. Ric. Pedagog. Didatt. (J. Theor. Res. Edu.) 2023, 18, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Adams, T.B.; Bezner, J.R.; Steinhardt, M.A. The conceptualization and measurement of perceived wellness: Integrating balance across and within dimensions. Am. J. Health Promot. 1997, 11, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Dahl, C.J.; Wilson-Mendenhall, C.D.; Davidson, R.J. The plasticity of well-being: A training-based framework for the cultivation of human flourishing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 32197–32206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Maulana, H.; Khawaja, N.; Obst, P. An Indonesian model of well-being: The integration of universal and cultural factors. Psych. J. 2021, 10, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Yasmin, B.; Khan, F.A.; Jehan, Z. Determinants of objective and subjective wellbeing of working and non-working women: A case study of Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan. Forman J. Econ. Stud. 2024, 20, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Barros, C.; Cruz, M.M.; Gaspar de Matos, M. The anatomy of well-being: Understanding its psychosocial and sociodemographic dimensions. Front. Sociol. 2025, 10, 1691938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Cannings, L.; Hutton, C.W.; Sorichetta, A.; Nilsen, K. Opposing objective and subjective wellbeing outcomes within an environmentally vulnerable delta: A case study of Volta Delta, Ghana. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1401480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Cannings, L.; Hutton, C.W.; Nilsen, K. An environment and comprehensive wellbeing (ECW) conceptual framework: Exploring environmental relationships with objective and subjective wellbeing. Popul. Environ. 2026, 48, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Graham, C.; Mujcic, R. Hope and the life course: Results from a longitudinal study of 25,000 adults. Health Econ. 2026, 35, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. ONS (Office for National Statistics UK). Beyond GDP Insights, UK Headline Measures of National Well-Being: June 2026. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringprogresswellbeingandbeyondgdpintheuk/june2026. (accessed on 8 August 2026).
  48. Sollis, K.; Campbell, P.; Drake, N. Australia’s wellbeing framework: Is it really ‘measuring what matters’? Aust. J. Soc. Issues 2025, 60, 511–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development). Well-Being Data Monitor; OECD: Paris, France, 2025; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/tools/well-being-data-monitor.html (accessed on 9 August 2026).
  50. UNECE (United National Economic Commission for Europe). Guidelines on the Measurement of Well-Being. 2025. Available online: https://unece.org/statistics/publications/guidelines-measurement-well-being. (accessed on 12 May 2026).
  51. Leung, K.; Wang, J.; Deng, H. How can indigenous research contribute to universal knowledge? An illustration with research on interpersonal harmony. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 2016, 58, 110–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Krys, K.; Kostoula, O.; van Tilburg, W.A.P.; Mosca, O.; Lee, J.H.; Maricchiolo, F.; Kosiarczyk, A.; Kocimska-Bortnowska, A.; Torres, C.; Hitokoto, H.; et al. Happiness maximization is a WEIRD way of living. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2024, 20, 874–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Zhao, M.Y. Harmony: Towards a unified conceptual framework. J. Posit. Psychol. 2025, 21, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Agrawal, S.; Sharma, N.; Agrawal, R.; Iazzolino, G.; Bruni, M.E. Beyond GDP: A triple helix framework for a happiness economy. Soc. Indic. Res. 2025, 179, 67–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Joshanloo, M. The cultural foundations of well-being: Authentic self-expression versus harmonious self-cultivation. App Res. Qual. Life 2026, 19, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Chukwuorji, J.B.; Osondu, O. Translation of well-being assessment instruments in African contexts: A mapping review and future directions. J. Psychol. Res. 2023, 5, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Brailovskaia, J.; Lin, M.; Scholten, S.; Zhu, M.; Fu, Y.; Shao, M.; Hu, S.; Li, X.; Guo, W.; Cai, D.; et al. A qualitative cross-cultural comparison of well-being constructs: The meaning of happiness, life satisfaction, and social support for German and Chinese students. J. Happiness Stud. 2022, 23, 1379–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Humphrey, A.; Barahona, F.; Bretherton, E.; Singh, P.; Kern, M.L. Perspectives of wellbeing across four cultures: Australia, India, Chile, and Russia. Psychol. Int. 2025, 7, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Delle Fave, A.; Brdar, I.; Wissing, M.P.; Araujo, U.; Castro Solano, A.; Freire, T.; Hernández-Pozo, M.D.R.; Jose, P.; Martos, T.; Nafstad, H.E.; et al. Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Schneider, S.; Junghaenel, D.U.; Smyth, J.M.; Fred Wen, C.K.; Stone, A.A. Just-in-time adaptive ecological momentary assessment (JITA-EMA). Behav. Res. Methods 2024, 56, 765–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  61. Chen, P.-J.; Lee, H.; Lee, J. Validating financial well-being scales across cultures: Evidence from Eastern cultural contexts. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2026, 47, 384–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Si, Y.M.; Taira, K. Calculating a prefecture-level well-being index in Japan: Applying the framework of the OECD’s Better Life Index. Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi (Jpn. J. Public Health) 2024, 71, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  63. Wissing, M.P. Beyond the "third wave of positive psychology”: Challenges and opportunities for future research. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 795067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  64. Mead, J.; Fisher, Z.; Kemp, A.H. Moving beyond disciplinary silos towards a transdisciplinary model of wellbeing: An invited review. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 642093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Gower, J.C. Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Psychom. 1975, 40, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Li, R.; Hu, Y. Identifying key predictors of subjective well-being across 92 countries: A machine learning approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2026, 27, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Aschauer, W. New directions in cross-cultural well-being research. Rev. Des. Polit. Soc. Fam. 2019, 131–132, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Ijerph 23 01140 g001
Figure 1. Frequency of 27 wellbeing composite dimensions, from 18 subjective frameworks, including seven authorities, and 10 indigenous.
Figure 1. Frequency of 27 wellbeing composite dimensions, from 18 subjective frameworks, including seven authorities, and 10 indigenous.
Ijerph 23 01140 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rooney, J.M. Culturally Sensitive Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing Linked to Objective Measures: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2026, 23, 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23091140

AMA Style

Rooney JM. Culturally Sensitive Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing Linked to Objective Measures: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2026; 23(9):1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23091140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rooney, Joy M. 2026. "Culturally Sensitive Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing Linked to Objective Measures: A Narrative Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 23, no. 9: 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23091140

APA Style

Rooney, J. M. (2026). Culturally Sensitive Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing Linked to Objective Measures: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 23(9), 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23091140

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop