3.8 Article

Wellness in Older Adults: A Concept Analysis

Journal

NURSING FORUM
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 39-51

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2011.00254.x

Keywords

wellness; older adults

Categories

Funding

  1. John A. Hartford Foundation/Building Academic Geriatric Nursing Capacity Program
  2. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Nursing, Research [F31NR012351]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [F31NR012351] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the concept of wellness within the context of older adulthood. Identifying characteristics of wellness will clarify and develop conceptual strengths and limitations, providing a step toward evaluating its relevance in older adults and increasing utility in geriatric nursing. ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK. Rodger's evolutionary perspective. METHODS. Computer and manual searches were conducted of articles in the English language from 1950 to 2010, addressing wellness across the life span or among older adult populations. An inductive analysis of articles produced descriptive themes. FINDINGS. A historical time line traced the evolution of the wellness concept and its operationalization. Wellness has evolved from a little used concept to one commonly applied across many industries. Antecedents, attributes, and consequences of wellness are described. Concepts related to wellness are also identified. CONCLUSIONS. This concept analysis adds clarity to wellness in older adults. The state of wellness development as a concept in geriatric nursing is moving from conceptualization to use and testing in nursing theory and interventions. Increased knowledge of wellness will enable geriatric nurses to discover the strengths of older adults thereby promoting their ongoing growth and development while simultaneously guiding care for their changing and diverse health.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available