ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024
A bibliometric review of positive psychology and well-being research in Africa.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Positive psychology 4.0: a science of consequence for a world that can no longer wait.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positive Psychology rapidly developed into an influential field of study and intervention, initially situated in Psychology, and later becoming multidisciplinary. Research interest in the study of (psychological) well-being has gained global popularity, with increasing salience in Africa. Although the global trends of these developments are relatively well-known, a bibliometric analysis of positive psychology research in Africa was necessary to shed light on the present hotspots and trends and future trajectories in this region of the world. The data source of the present bibliometric analysis study was Scopus, from which Positive Psychology and well-being research literature from Africa between 1983 and 2023 were searched. Using biblioshiny and VOSviewer, the 622 extracted articles were analysed, from which findings about the current condition, research hotspots, and thematic developmental patterns could be made. Africa experienced an initial slow growth period from 1983 until 2005, after which a rapid growth in research productivity, relevance and impact was experienced. In this regard, the results show that the focal point of scientific productivity is South Africa, with the dominance of South African institutions, particularly the North-West University, from where most positive psychology research is produced and cited. Even with potential access to international journal, African researchers seem to prefer to place their publications in the regional journals such as Journal of Psychology in Africa and South African Journal of Psychology. The research reviewed tends to be characterised by more dominant thematic clusters of positive psychology, psychological well-being, and subjective well-being, with a focus on human individuals. An increasing concern for contextual factors and potential antecedents and dynamics of well-being is also observed. The findings provide a good map from which identification of future research priorities can be deduced. As such, we speculate that future positive psychology research in Africa ought to be concerned with the following: greater distribution and intercountry collaborations across the continent, questions of conceptual clarity of terms, better understanding of contextual factors which influence well-being, and well-being research embracing the complexity of bio-psycho-social-ecological well-being, and science concerned with health-promotion interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.