Conceptions of Wellbeing in Veteran Research Literature

Introduction: Well-being is increasingly recognised as a key indicator of societal progress, yet there is no universal consensus exists on how best to define, measure or foster it. This lack of clarity is amplified in veteran populations, where factors such as military identity, transition experiences and community reintegration may significantly influence well-being. This scoping review aims to clarify how well-being is conceptualised in the international literature. Specifically, we examined: (1) which domains of well-being are evaluated in veteran-focused research; and (2) how the veteran well-being literature compares to that of the general population.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review guided by PRISMA. Peer-reviewed, English language articles published since 2010 were included if they focused on veterans aged 18 or older and offered a clear conceptualisation of well-being. Studies focused on active-du- ty service members, younger populations or those lacking a defined well-being measure were excluded. Database searches spanned APA PsychArticles, PubMed, JSTOR, Wiley, EBSCO and the Cochrane Library. From more than 4,000 initial records, 503 articles met inclusion criteria following screening in Covidence by two independent reviewers. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics and key well-being constructs, then conducted a narrative synthesis to identify common themes.

Expected Results: A preliminary analysis of 43 articles revealed 12 distinct well-being domains. On average, each study addressed three domains, ranging from one to eight. Mental (n=37), Social (n=25) and Physical (n=25) health were most frequently reported, followed by Family/Spousal, Financial and Work domains (n=12 each). General (n=9), Spiritual (n=8), Military Identity (n=4), Life Skills/Personal Development (n=2) and Meaning/Engaged Citizenship (n=1 each) were comparatively underexplored. This limited distribution is consistent with the research on well-being among the general population.

Conclusion: Any research or policy initiatives aimed at promoting veteran well-being must be grounded in a broad, commonly accepted understanding of well-being that recognises the multiple domains contributing to a comprehensive concept of health. Limiting well-being to individual psychological and physical factors neglects the pivotal influence of social context. Instead, incorporating a sense of community, belonging, identity, and spiritual well-being, among other relevant dimensions, offers a more holistic and inclusive framework. Embracing these broader perspectives will ultimately enhance our ability to support policy approaches tailored to veterans’ diverse needs.