Viewing archives for The Future Of Wellbeing

Climate action saves lives. So why do climate models ignore wellbeing?

The Conversation

Climate change is already shaping our wellbeing. It affects mental health, spreads infectious diseases, disrupts work, damages food supplies and forces families to leave their homes because of conflict, hunger or flooding.

Wellbeing refers to everything that enables people to live healthy, safe and meaningful lives. It includes physical and mental health, access to food, clean water, hygiene and income, as well as work, leisure, culture and education.

It also involves personal safety, freedoms, trust in institutions and how people feel about their own lives. Environmental quality, biodiversity and the degree of inequality in society are part of wellbeing too. Climate change touches every one of these areas.

Inclusion of wellbeing impacts of climate change: a review of literature and integrated environment–society–economy models

Inge Schrijver, Paul Behrens, Rutger Hoekstra and René Kleijn

Abstract

Climate change has broad and deep impacts on people’s wellbeing; yet, these dynamics are largely excluded from integrated environment–society–economy (ESE) models. In this Review, we provide an overview of climate change–wellbeing impact pathways and explore which of these pathways have been quantified or modelled, or both. We assessed literature reviews and meta-analyses to describe how climate change affects specific wellbeing outcomes and which of these relationships are robust and amenable to parametrisation. We also conducted a review of 18 models that include one or more wellbeing impacts of climate change. Generally, more quantified pathways are available in the literature than those currently incorporated in ESE models. Temperature-related mortality, food security, and GDP are well represented in quantitative literature and to some extent in ESE models, whereas the impacts of climate change on infectious diseases; respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological outcomes; mental health; adverse birth outcomes; occupational health and labour productivity; conflict; migration; poverty; air quality; and biodiversity loss have been quantified in the literature but are largely absent in ESE models. These relationships present promising steps towards a next generation of ESE models that could include more sophisticated interactions between environmental impacts and wellbeing.

Adolescent Wellbeing: The Role of Schools

Devi Khanna, Jose Marquez and Alexandra Turner

Abstract

Adolescence, spanning ages 10–24, is a period of significant transition marked by changes such as puberty, brain development, and shifts in social norms and relationships. As a malleable developmental context, adolescence presents an opportunity for early intervention for improving wellbeing over the life course. Taking a socioecological approach, this chapter outlines the integral role that schools can play in improving adolescent wellbeing as part of adolescents’ environment. This chapter draws on empirical literature as well as case studies of existing health and education policies around the world. In doing so, it considers the role and responsibility of schools for improving wellbeing outcomes; how different aspects of school impact wellbeing differently; and provide policy-based recommendations for how schools can most effectively promote adolescent wellbeing.

Equality of opportunity and mortality around the world: implications for global public health

Alexi Gugushvili, Elias Nosrati and Caspar Kaiser

Abstract

Background Educational mobility is considered a key driver of population health. While prior studies suggest that intergenerational equality of opportunity may be linked to mortality, most evidence comes from high-income countries. Little is known about whether these associations apply globally.

Objective This study assesses the relationship between intergenerational educational mobility and all-cause mortality across a global sample of countries.

Methods We combine country-level data from the WHO Mortality Database and the World Bank’s Global Database on Intergenerational Mobility, covering five birth cohorts across 148 countries. Using multilevel random effects models, we estimate associations between four dimensions of educational mobility (upward, downward, stagnant, and correlation-based) and age- and sex-adjusted all-cause mortality, controlling for national indicators of education, income, inequality, health spending, unemployment, and political freedoms.

Results Higher upward educational mobility and lower stagnant mobility are significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality. In fully adjusted models, a one standard deviation greater measure of upward mobility is associated with a reduction of 29.1 deaths per 100,000 population, while a one standard deviation lower stagnation measure is associated with a reduction of 27.3 deaths per 100,000 population. These patterns are consistent across high- and low-income countries.

Conclusions Our findings suggest that promoting educational equality of opportunity may reduce mortality and improve public health worldwide. Strengthening social mobility, especially in settings with persistent educational inequality, can be an effective policy lever for reducing health disparities and supporting healthier populations.

Hope and the Life Course

Unemployment and Climate Worries

Add event to calendar

The implications of climate change impacts on wellbeing

Add event to calendar

Beyond GDP: A review and conceptual framework for measuring sustainable and inclusive wellbeing

Add event to calendar

How to keep humans at the centre of NHS digital transformation

Healthcare Leader

For several years, digital transformation has been promised as a solution to the rising pressures on the UK’s health service. Digital as the default delivery method is believed to be the solution to speeding up access to care, freeing up physical access for those most in need, and meeting financial pressures. And it’s not just the UK; globally, health leaders are advocating and driving the digitisation of care.

Yet for digital transformation to be successful, research persistently shows that service users must be central to the development and roll-out of digital solutions. To include service users, novel techniques are required. That’s where Human-Centred Design comes in.

In our recent paper, published in JMIR Human Factors, we discuss the complex challenge of including service users in the design and delivery of digital transformation. We focus specifically on mental health.

Mental health services are an especially promising area for digital innovation. Digital diagnostics can speed up signposting to necessary services. Chatbots are promised as a cheap, scalable, and rapid solution for psychiatric treatment. Health promotion, education and prevention can be supported remotely through digital resources. As can rehabilitation.

However, in 2022, it was estimated that there were over 15,000 mobile mental health apps already, with more predicted now. The problem is making tools stick. Research on uptake of digital tools shows that only where these tools are developed alongside users are they effective. For example, platforms for peer mental health support, or parent-led therapy for children, have been developed with their stakeholders and led to improvements in care.

How can this be achieved? In our paper we outline the method of Human-Centred Design (HCD). HCD is a method developed from design and commercial user-experience. It requires iterating between problems and solutions along with relevant stakeholder groups, or ‘actors’. In mental health, these actors include service users, clinicians, caregivers, public officials, and many more. The process requires:

empathising with the situation;
a discovery phase to understand needs;
defining the problem at hand;
designing the correct solution;
prototyping and testing the solution
planning and implementing the best option.

To be even more specific, we have defined HCD for mental health services as:

A practical iterative approach to the design, development, and reform of mental health systems, services, and products, that is achieved through communication, iteration, and empathy with users’ needs, desires, experiences.

The UK government, a long-time global leader in digital transformation, showed this is viable. We write about how NHS Digital, under the guise of NHSX, led HCD discovery projects to support the reform of the Mental Health Act. The primary recommendation emerging from this was that there should be electronic ‘advance choice documents’ to set out future care preferences, especially in cases of detention. Such a suggestion does not require artificial intelligence, but could make significant improvements to the dignity people receive in severe cases. However, it does require ongoing resource and commitment for success.

Readers might note that at no point in the HCD process I outline above did I specify the solutions were digital. One key message, both from our stakeholder engagement and from reviewing state-of-the-art literature, is that ‘the solution may or may not be digital’. We call this ‘digital solutionism’: assuming that digital transformation is going to solve all our healthcare problems.

True service user involvement requires openly identifying the problems in service delivery. At times, certainly, digital transformation can lead to more efficient and even higher quality delivery. Yet those designing and delivering policy and services must recognise what is vital: we must choose the solution for the problem, not pick up a hammer and look for a nail.

For digital transformation of all health services to be successful, we must include the most important people in that design and delivery. As well, we must recognise its limits. Human-centred design offers us an approach for both.

William Fleming is a Research Fellow at the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre

2504 | Mapping adolescent wellbeing: developmental network shifts from early to middle adolescence in 24 countries

Wanying Zhou, Jose Marquez, Leoni Boyle and Laura Taylor

This study applied psychometric network analysis to examine the structure of adolescent wellbeing across 49 indicators of subjective and psychological wellbeing in a large international sample (N = 6,445; ages 11-18) from 38 schools across 24 countries. We estimated networks separately for early (11-14) and middle (15-18) adolescents to assess developmental change. The overall network was moderately dense and highly stable. Overall life satisfaction, satisfaction with student life, and optimism about the future emerged as central nodes. While the global network structure was similar across age groups, older adolescents showed increased centrality for negative affect (“bad”), relaxed mood, and future optimism, and decreased centrality for current life evaluation. These findings underscore the integrated and developmentally shifting nature of adolescent wellbeing, and offer practical insights for monitoring, intervention, and policy. Results highlight the value of developmentally sensitive strategies that support both present experience and future-oriented resilience across diverse youth populations.