WELL-BEING IN ACADEMIC LIFE: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, TERMINOLOGY, AND ITS STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION

Abstract

Objective: Increasing levels of burnout, chronic stress, and psychological distress in academic environments have made well-being an important topic of discussion in medical education. However, the lack of conceptual consensus regarding well-being has led to the interchangeable use of theoretically distinct constructs such as well-being and wellness (and, in Turkish, to the use of multiple terms such as “iyilik hali,” “iyi oluş,” and “refah” to translate well-being), complicating the establishment of a unified terminology. The aim of this review is to examine the concept of well-being in academic life within the context of medical education, to provide conceptual clarity regarding related terminology, and to discuss its strategic importance in terms of educational quality, patient safety, and institutional sustainability. Methods: This study was conducted as a classical review. Relevant literature was examined to synthesize the main theoretical approaches, conceptual distinctions, measurement perspectives, and reflections of well-being in academic life within an integrated framework. Results: The literature indicates that well-being in academic life cannot be explained solely as the absence of burnout, but should be understood as a multidimensional and dynamic construct. This multidimensionality is explained by the fact that well-being includes both hedonic (subjective well-being, life satisfaction) and eudaimonic (meaning, purpose, development) dimensions. In the literature, well-being is often assessed not as a holistic construct itself, but through related dimensions such as burnout, stress, depression, or life satisfaction. This contributes to heterogeneity in measurement approaches and limits the comparability of findings across studies. In addition, the lack of clearly defined conceptual frameworks in many studies complicates the interpretation of results. Together, these findings suggest that well-being in academic settings should be understood not merely as an individual condition, but as a multidimensional construct shaped by the interaction of structural factors such as workload, leadership, learning environment, and institutional culture. Conclusion: Academic well-being is a complex concept that goes beyond individual functioning and has a direct impact on professional development, institutional sustainability, and educational quality. Therefore, developing holistic approaches that incorporate both individual and institutional components, consistent and standardized usage of terminology, and better conceptual frameworks are all necessary to improve well-being.

Keywords

• well-being
• medical education
• academic life
• student well-being
• faculty well-being

AKADEMİK YAŞAMDA İYİLİK HALİ: KAVRAMSAL ÇERÇEVE, TERMİNOLOJİ VE TIP EĞİTİMİ AÇISINDAN STRATEJİK ÖNEMİ

Abstract

Amaç: Akademik ortamlarda artan tükenmişlik, kronik stres ve psikolojik zorlanma düzeyleri, iyilik halini tıp eğitiminde önemli bir tartışma konusu haline getirmiştir. Ancak iyilik hali kavramına ilişkin kavramsal uzlaşı eksikliği, well-being ve wellness gibi kuramsal olarak farklı kavramların birbirinin yerine kullanılmasına (ve Türkçede well-being karşılığı olarak “iyilik hali”, “iyi oluş” ve “refah” gibi farklı terimlerin kullanılmasına) yol açarak ortak bir terminolojinin oluşturulmasını güçleştirmiştir. Bu derlemenin amacı, akademik yaşamda iyilik hali kavramını tıp eğitimi bağlamında ele almak, ilişkili terminolojiye açıklık kazandırmak ve bu kavramın eğitim kalitesi, hasta güvenliği ve kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik açısından stratejik önemini tartışmaktır. Yöntem: Bu çalışma geleneksel derleme yöntemiyle hazırlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda ilgili literatür incelenerek iyilik hali kavramına ilişkin temel kuramsal yaklaşımlar, kavramsal ayrımlar, ölçüm yaklaşımları ve akademik yaşam bağlamındaki yansımalar bütüncül bir çerçevede değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Literatür, akademik yaşamda iyilik halinin yalnızca tükenmişliğin yokluğu ile açıklanamayacağını, çok boyutlu ve dinamik bir yapı olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çok boyutluluk, iyilik halinin hem hedonik (öznel iyi oluş, yaşam doyumu) hem de eudaimonik (anlam, amaç, gelişim) boyutları birlikte içermesiyle açıklanmaktadır. Çalışmalarda iyilik hali çoğunlukla doğrudan bütüncül bir yapı olarak değil; tükenmişlik, stres, depresyon veya yaşam doyumu gibi alt boyutlar üzerinden değerlendirilmektedir. Bu durum ölçüm araçlarında heterojenliğe yol açarak bulguların karşılaştırılmasını güçleştirmektedir. Ayrıca birçok çalışmada kavramsal çerçevenin açık şekilde tanımlanmamış olması, sonuçların yorumlanmasını sınırlamaktadır. Bu tablo, akademik yaşamda iyilik halinin yalnızca bireysel bir durum olarak değil; iş yükü, liderlik, öğrenme ortamı ve kurumsal kültür gibi yapısal faktörlerin etkileşimiyle şekillenen çok boyutlu bir yapı olarak ele alınması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç: Akademik yaşamda iyilik hali, yalnızca bireysel iyi oluşu değil; eğitim kalitesini, mesleki gelişimi ve kurumsal sürdürülebilirliği doğrudan etkileyen çok boyutlu bir kavramdır. Bu nedenle, iyilik halinin ele alınmasında kavramsal çerçevenin netleştirilmesi, terminolojinin daha tutarlı kullanılması ve bireysel ile kurumsal düzeyleri birlikte kapsayan bütüncül yaklaşımların geliştirilmesi önem taşımaktadır.

Keywords

• : iyilik hali
• well-being
• tıp eğitimi
• akademik yaşam
• öğrenci iyilik hali
• öğretim üyesi iyilik hali

References

1. 1. Shanafelt TD, Boone S, Tan L, Dyrbye LN, Sotile W, Satele D, et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Oct 8;172(18):1377–85. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3199.
2. 2. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, Shanafelt TD. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016 Nov;388(10057):2272–81. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31279-X.
3. 3. Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: a potential threat to successful health care reform. JAMA. 2011 May 18;305(19):2009–10. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.652.
4. 4. Banerjee G, Mitchell JD, Brzezinski M, DePorre A, Ballard HA. Burnout in academic physicians. Perm J. 2023 Jun 15;27(2):142–9. doi:10.7812/TPP/23.032.
5. 5. Paradis KC, Kerr EA, Griffith KA, Cutter CM, Feldman EL, Singer K, et al. Burnout among mid-career academic medical faculty. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jun;7(6):e2415593. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15593.
6. 6. Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, Segal JB, Peluso MJ, Guille C, et al. Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016 Dec 6;316(21):2214–36. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17324.
7. 7. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Common program requirements [Internet]. Chicago (IL): ACGME; [cited 2026 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.acgme.org/programs-and-institutions/programs/common-program-requirements/
8. 8. Tıp Eğitimi Programlarını Değerlendirme ve Akreditasyon Derneği (TEPDAD). Cumhuriyetin ikinci yüzyılında Türkiye’de tıp eğitiminin geleceği için hedefler [Internet]. İzmir: TEPDAD; 2025 Jun [cited 2026 Apr 21]. Available from: https://tepdad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/TEPDAD-Temel-Hedefler-2025.pdf

9. 9. Dodge R, Daly A, Huyton J, Sanders L. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing. 2012 Aug 28;2(3):222–35. doi:10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4.
10. 10. World Health Organization (WHO). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases [Internet]. 2019 May 28 [cited 2026 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases
11. 11. Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health? BMJ. 2011 Jul 26;343:d4163. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4163.
12. 12. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1984;95(3):542–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.
13. 13. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10–28. doi:10.1159/000353263.
14. 14. Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001 Feb;52(1):141–66. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
15. 15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Measuring well-being [Internet]. Paris: OECD; [cited 2026 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/how-s-life/volume-/issue-_9870c393-en.html
16. 16. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human development report 2025: A matter of choice: people and possibilities in the age of AI [Internet]. New York: UNDP; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 7]. Available from: https://report.hdr.undp.org/a-matter-of-choice
17. 17. Bautista TG, Roman G, Khan M, Lee M, Sahbaz S, Duthely LM, et al. What is well-being? A scoping review of the conceptual and operational definitions of occupational well-being. J Clin Transl Sci. 2023;7(1):e227. doi:10.1017/cts.2023.648.
18. 18. Iqbal Ruiz A, Gijselaers W, Beausaert S, Gast I. Being Well in Academia: A Systematic Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Well-being and Well-being indicators. Review of Educational Research. 2025 Dec 1. Epub 2025 Dec 1. doi: 10.3102/00346543251380975
19. 19. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007 Apr 3;22(3):309–28. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115.
20. 20. Seligman MEP. PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. J Posit Psychol. 2018 Jul 4;13(4):333–5. doi:10.1080/17439760.2018.1437466.
21. 21. Global Wellness Institute (GWI). What is wellness? [Internet]. [cited 2026 Apr 21]. Available from: https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/what-is-wellness/
22. 22. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav. 1981 Apr;2(2):99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205.
23. 23. Southwick SM, Bonanno GA, Masten AS, Panter-Brick C, Yehuda R. Resilience: definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2014 Dec 1;5(1):25338. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338.
24. 24. Spreitzer GM, Sutcliffe KM, Dutton JE, Sonenshein S, Grant AM. A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organ Sci. 2005 Oct;16(5):537–49. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0153.
25. 25. Ryan RM, Frederick CM. On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J Pers. 1997;65(3):529–65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x.
26. 26. Seligman MEP. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press; 2011.
27. 27. Keyes CLM. The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J Health Soc Behav. 2002;43(2):207–22. doi:10.2307/3090197.
28. 28. Swarbrick M. A wellness approach to mental health recovery. In: Oxford textbook of psychiatry [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012 [cited 2026 Apr 21]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199691319.003.0003
29. 29. West CP, Tan AD, Habermann TM, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Association of resident fatigue and distress with perceived medical errors. JAMA. 2009 Sep 23;302(12):1294–300. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1389
30. 30. Dyrbye LN, West CP, Satele D, Boone S, Tan L, Sloan J, et al. Burnout among U.S. medical students, residents, and early career physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Acad Med. 2014 Mar;89(3):443–51. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000134.
31. 31. Deligkaris P, Panagopoulou E, Montgomery AJ, Masoura E. Job burnout and cognitive functioning: a systematic review. Work Stress. 2014 Apr 3;28(2):107–23. doi:10.1080/02678373.2014.909545.
32. 32. Keskin DD, Koc D, Guven KM, Akoglu H, Altintas L, Sahiner M. Interventions to improve faculty well-being in medical schools: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2025 Dec 19;26(1):131. doi:10.1186/s12909-025-08463-2.
33. 33. Zhang W, Balloo K, Hosein A, Medland E. A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being. BMC Psychol. 2024;12:74. doi:10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0.