Happy holidays!

All of us here at the What Works Centre
for Wellbeing would like to wish you happy holidays with health, happiness and wellbeing for the new year!

We’ve had a great year and you’ve helped us grow in reach to thousands of people. Thank you.

Aside from co-hosting a range of conferences and workshops, in 2016 we launched our first systematic review and measuring wellbeing discussion paper.

We’re looking forward to an exciting 2016: more systematic reviews focussed on the different wellbeing impacts of work, learning, community, sport and culture. We will also be publishing more discussion papers and practical guides for policy makers and practitioners. Follow us to keep updated on our events and publications as dates are announced.

All the best from the What Works Wellbeing team.

Can there be ‘common currency’ to measure wellbeing?

To introduce the Centre’s new Measuring Wellbeing series, our head of evidence and analysis explores the approach set out in our first discussion paper by Prof. Richard Layard on measuring wellbeing and cost effectiveness using subjective wellbeing.

If we want to increase society’s wellbeing, should we build new houses or encourage community choirs? How can we compare the wellbeing benefits of a new crime prevention initiative with an antenatal care programme?

Professor Richard Layard, from the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, presents an eloquent, albeit contested, answer. He proposes that we could decide between options by comparing their impact on life satisfaction (on a scale of 0-10), as measured by the Office of National Statistics. Programmes should evaluate their effectiveness, using good quality evaluations, by assessing their impact on life satisfaction. Or, if we already know the impact of a programme on a measure such as the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, or job satisfaction, we could convert these to life satisfaction. We may not have precise models to be able to use as an exact exchange rate,  but we can get an indication by by looking at correlation between the measures when they have both been asked in another survey*.

Ultimately, Professor Layard sets out that policies should be converted to life satisfaction. They can then be compared based on their potential increase to life satisfaction for a given amount of money. This would be weighted for inequality so that more importance is given to raising life satisfaction when it is low.

It is a neat solution to a difficult problem. In Government, we make conversions and assumptions all the time: assessing the equivalent monetary benefit of a safe neighbourhood by looking at differences in house prices; asking people how they would compare the risk of death to the risk of breaking their arm; establishing how important road safety is compared to faster speed limits. The results may not be perfect, but they allow us to make a start at comparing options. It is better to be roughly right than completely wrong and not even attempting to make these comparisons.

Professor Layard argues that, rather than trying to convert through monetary values, we should focus directly on what is most important – asking people about their own assessment of their lives.

Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?

There are, of course, difficulties in choosing life satisfaction as our unit of measurement. Academics have challenged whether people interpret the questions in the same way  and whether we can compare across people. Studies question how responses to satisfaction compare to actual lived experiences. We know that people adapt to their circumstances: individuals are initially happier when conditions improve to give them, for example, less crowded housing and improved physical mobility. But after a while we adapt, and as we become used to these better conditions our expectations increase. Since life satisfaction may be a judgement against the individual’s expectation, it may be difficult to compare even with the same individual over time.

There are also challenges with putting this into practice. While life satisfaction might be associated with all other measures of subjective wellbeing, that does not mean it captures all the variation in other measures. A programme may lead to significant changes in physical or mental health, or satisfaction at work, each of which are important in their own right, but they may not register on a scale of life satisfaction.**

So, what should we do?

Life satisfaction is an important and meaningful indicator of wellbeing. It correlates with other measures of wellbeing, including neurological assessments. However as a Centre, we want to reflect the multi-dimensional nature of wellbeing. We do want to reach a point where we can consistently compare the impacts of different choices with common measures, so we can begin to understand how important certain actions are compared to others. At the same time we want to continue to support, collect and record other outcome measures and understand the value that domain-specific measures and other approaches can bring.***

This discussion series will bring together leading thinkers and practitioners, with their views of how we could define and measure wellbeing and use this in decision-making in different sectors across UK. We want to initiate public discussion and debate about what next – across thinking and practice – to come to a shared, open decision about the methodologies and measurements we need to improve the wellbeing and reduce wellbeing inequalities – of individuals and communities across the UK.

These discussion papers are mainly aimed at analysts, wanting to understand the latest thinking and theoretical underpinnings, however the accompanying blog and ‘Practical Guides’ are aimed at all audiences who may be considering how to put wellbeing into practice.

* These scales may be showing something slightly different to life satisfaction, however when both sets of questions are asked in the same survey, it is possible to see how similar they are (how much a change in e.g. WEMWEBS maps onto a change in life satisfaction).  We can assume that this link between the two scales holds in other cases, where only e.g. WEMWEBS has been asked.

** For example, life satisfaction has not been found to be very sensitive to physical health conditions relative to other health-related measures.

*** Some may also support the case for an improvement in existing techniques, so that approaches such as contingent valuation can be more meaningful.

References

Davidson, R.J. (1992). ‘Emotion and affective style: hemispheric substrates’, Psychological Science, 3(1), pp. 39-43.

Dolan, P., Kudrna, L.,  and Stone, A. (2016). ‘The measure matters: an investigation of evaluative and experience-based measures of wellbeing in time use data’ Social Indicators Research. ISSN 0303-8300

Haybron, D.M. (2007). ‘Well-being and Virtue’, Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 2 (2)

Mukuria, C., Peasgood, T., Rowen, D. and Brazier, J. (2016). ‘An empirical comparison of well-being measures used in UK’. Research Report RR0048: University of Sheffield and the University of York.

Ponocny, I., Weismayer, C., Stross, B. et al.  (2016) ‘Are Most People Happy? Exploring the Meaning of Subjective Well-Being Ratings’ Journal of Happiness Studies 17: 2635 doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9710-0

Ralph, K., Palmer, K. Olney, J. (2011). ‘Subjective Well-being: a qualitative investigation of subjective well-being questions’ (Working paper for the Technical Advisory Group on 29 March 2012)

What can wellbeing tell us about food safety?

Before diving into the great blog below, why not read our latest review of evidence of what works with music and singing for people with diagnosed conditions or dementia?

It’s a follow-up to our review last month of what works for healthy adults.

Just go to Music, singing and wellbeing page to read more.

---

This month we’ll likely be tucking into festive foods, and spending time with loved ones. (Or avoiding everyone and everything!) Here, we have a guest blog about the relationship between food and wellbeing from Charlotte Owen, researcher at the Food Standards Agency – and former researcher Edward Eaton – responsible for managing the FSA’s flagship biennial consumer survey, Food and You.

As a founding partner of the What Works Centre for Wellbeing, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is interested in the concept of wellbeing and how it can help the FSA in its work to protect consumers and represent their interests. As a result, the FSA introduced four ONS-harmonised measures of wellbeing in its flagship consumer survey, Food and You, which was conducted in 2014. These measures take the form of a 0-10 point scale, with questions about life satisfaction, life being worthwhile, happiness, and anxiety.

We looked at how wellbeing relates to one of the FSA’s key priorities: domestic food safety. As far as we were aware, no studies to date had looked at the issue of wellbeing in relation to food safety. However, there was evidence linking eudemonic wellbeing (relating to the sense of engagement and life fulfilment) with health-promoting activities, such as the consumption of fruit and vegetables, physical activity, and taking up health advice.

Associations have also been found with pro-social behaviour. The research team thought that food safety (in terms of the impact it has on one’s own health, and the health of others who you cook or prepare food for) could potentially be related to wellbeing in either of these ways.

To measure food safety, the FSA developed a composite measure called the Index of Recommended Practice (IRP). This takes answers to multiple questions in the Food and You survey relating to domestic food safety behaviour, and assigns respondents a score from 0 (no answers in line with Agency recommendations) to 100 (all answers in line with recommendations).

Comparing IRP score to the four ONS wellbeing indicators, we found a weak, but statistically significant positive correlation with life being worthwhile, and life satisfaction. No association was found for the ‘hedonic’ measures of happiness and anxiety. We then grouped raw 0-10 responses to the four wellbeing measures into three categories, low, medium and high, which we used to look at IRP score.

Figure 1: Mean IRP score for low, medium and high categories of wellbeing

As Figure 1 shows, people who reported medium and high levels of life satisfaction and life being worthwhile were more likely to report food safety practices in line with FSA guidance, compared to those at the lower level of wellbeing. This seemed to support our initial hypothesis that food safety could be related to the ‘eudemonic’ aspects of wellbeing. In order to investigate this further, we carried out regression analysis on the life satisfaction and life being worthwhile aspects of wellbeing, controlling for other variables, including demographic/socio-economic variables, food safety attitudes, and social relationships.

We found that even after controlling for these variables, people reporting high levels of life satisfaction still had a significantly higher (1.9 points) IRP score than those reporting low levels. The same pattern was found for life being worthwhile, with a difference of 2.7 points.

In addition to these analyses, we also looked at whether particular aspects of wellbeing were associated with certain food safety-related behaviours. While the full details are available in the report, there were some interesting findings.

For example, those reporting medium or high anxiety levels were significantly more likely to report eating leftovers within a day or two of first cooking them, as well as making sure to cook food to steaming hot throughout. Life being worthwhile was also found to be positively associated with reporting recommended practice for activities such as washing hands before and after preparing food, and checking use-by dates on food before cooking.

Overall, these findings seem to suggest that wellbeing does indeed have a potential role in helping the Agency plan and evaluate its work around food safety, particularly in relation to the eudemonic aspects of wellbeing. It is difficult to determine the precise nature of the relationship between wellbeing and food safety, including the ways in which the relationship might be mediated through other factors, and the direction of causation. For example, does eudemonic wellbeing result in greater care around food safety, or is it the reverse? Or might there some other confounding variable that we did not control for in our analysis? As always, further research (including that of a longitudinal, or a qualitative nature), may help us narrow down the answers to some of these kinds of questions.

Special thanks go to the project team responsible for the paper: Caireen Roberts, Klaudia Lubian and Sally McManus (NatCen Social Research) and Liza Draper and Angela Clow (University of Westminster).