In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) permeates every facet of our lives, the imperative to steer AI development toward enhancing human wellbeing has never been more critical. However, the development of such positive AI poses substantial challenges due to the current lack of mature methods for addressing the complexities that designing AI for wellbeing poses. This article presents and evaluates the positive AI design method aimed at addressing this gap. The method provides a human-centered process for translating wellbeing aspirations into concrete interventions. First, we explain the method’s key steps: (1) contextualizing, (2) operationalizing, (3) designing, and (4) implementing supported by (5) continuous measurement for iterative feedback cycles. We then present a multi-case study where novice designers applied the method, revealing strengths and weaknesses related to efficacy and usability. Next, an expert evaluation study assessed the quality of the case studies’ outcomes, rating them moderately high for feasibility, desirability, and plausibility of achieving intended wellbeing benefits. Together, these studies provide preliminary validation of the method’s ability to improve AI design, while identifying opportunities for enhancement. Building on these insights, we propose adaptations for future iterations of the method, such as the inclusion of wellbeing-related heuristics, suggesting promising avenues for future work. This human-centered approach shows promise for realizing a vision of “AI for wellbeing” that does not just avoid harm, but actively promotes human flourishing.

While in his early years, Kahneman followed the world of classic utilitarianism in which smart individuals base decisions on how they will truly feel each moment in the future, Kahneman in Mandel (2018) adopted a very different position, namely that what matters is the story people tell of their lives. He thus grappled with evolving stories of both the future and the past, and the presence of different decision-supporting evaluations for the short-run and the long-run.

Over recent decades it has consistently been shown that disabled adults in the UK fare worse in the labour market and have lower levels of wellbeing than non-disabled adults. However, this is in part due to the selection into dis-ability of those with existing socio-economic disadvantages. In this article, we use panel data from the combined British Household Panel Survey and Understanding Society, covering the 27 years from 1991 to 2018, to distinguish between the effect of selection, the effect of dis-ability onset and the effect of dis-ability duration on a range of labour market and wellbeing outcomes. We show that there is important selection both into dis-ability and into longer experience of dis-ability on the basis of observable characteristics. We also show the importance of controlling for time-invariant unobservable individual characteristics that similarly affect selection into dis-ability and duration of dis-ability. Even after controlling for both forms of selection, we find significant negative effects of dis-ability onset and duration, and offer policy solutions to address them.

Oceania is currently facing a substantial challenge: to provide sustainable and ethical food systems that support nutrition and health across land and water. The Nutrition Society of Australia and the Nutrition Society of New Zealand held a joint 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting on ‘Nutrition and Wellbeing in Oceania’ attended by 408 delegates. This was a timely conference focussing on nutrition challenges across the Pacific, emphasising the importance of nutrition across land and water, education settings, women’s health and gut health. Cutting-edge, multi-disciplinary and collaborative research was presented in a 4-day programme of keynote presentations, workshops, oral and poster sessions, breakfast and lunch symposiums and early career researcher sessions. The conference highlighted the importance of collaboration between nations to address the challenge facing nutrition and wellbeing across Oceania. A systems approach of collaboration among scientists, industry and government is vital for finding solutions to this challenge.

Social engagement is considered a relevant modifiable factor for older adults' wellbeing. Theory and policies highlight its importance for ageing well. Empirical evidence shows that social activities are associated with positive psychological outcomes and might buffer wellbeing declines in late life. Despite growing research, social engagement lacks conceptual clarity, it is difficult to adopt standardised measures and findings are sometimes inconsistent. Previous systematic reviews either take a different approach to this topic or were published over a decade ago. Therefore, the present study aimed to review the literature systematically regarding the relationship between social engagement and wellbeing in community-dwelling older adults. Papers published from 2000 to 2021 were searched in five databases using a combination of terms. The reviewers screened the records according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After identifying eligible articles, the authors extracted data and produced a narrative synthesis covering conceptualisation, measurement and main findings. The review includes 42 papers. Despite great conceptual and methodological diversity, research supports that older adults with higher participation in social activities have improved wellbeing. Findings also suggest that these associations are stronger for individuals with disadvantages and have a cumulative nature whereby the greater the social engagement, the higher the wellbeing. Conversely, for more demanding activities, there might be optimal participation levels. Regardless of accumulating knowledge, social engagement remains diffuse and difficult to measure. This paper summarises the current state of research on this topic, showing encouraging evidence of social engagement benefits, but also questions that deserve further inquiry. Future studies should be anchored in a clear conceptual framework, use robust measures, and explore hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Social engagement can be an important developmental resource for social interventions and policies aimed at improving people's lives.

Diet and diet quality have been linked to improvements to psychosocial health and wellbeing(1). However, data from national health surveys indicate that most Australian’s have poor diet quality and consume a Western style diet high in saturated fat, discretionary foods and added sugars and salt(2). The Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet), a predominantly plant-based diet rich in bioactive foods and nutrients, has been shown to improve mood and wellbeing. However, long-term effects beyond 6-months have not been thoroughly explored in older adults. MedWalk compares a 12-month MedDiet and Walking intervention with habitual lifestyle (HabDiet) in 160 older adults residing in retirement villages across South Australia and Victoria. Data from the South Australian cohort at baseline (n = 83) and 6-months (n = 74) are presented in this preliminary analysis.

To determine dietary compliance, participants completed the 14-point MedDiet Adherence (MEDAS) questionnaire which assesses the intake of key MedDiet foods such as legumes, fish, and extra virgin olive oil; higher scores reflect higher adherence. Wellbeing was assessed using the Flourishing Index, which assesses life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, happiness, mental and physical health. The total flourishing score includes 10 questions with a maximum of 100 points reflecting highest flourishing, while the secure flourishing score includes two additional questions related to safety, housing, and access to food with a maximum of 120 points to indicate highest flourishing. Group and time interactions for MEDAS and flourishing scores were analysed using linear mixed effects modelling. There were no significant differences between groups for MEDAS score at baseline (MedDiet 5.78 ± 0.34 vs HabDiet 5.74 ± 0.32). At 6 months, the MedDiet group had significantly increased their MEDAS by 4.16 points (P<0.001), (MedDiet 10.0 ± 0.42 vs HabDiet (5.85 ± 0.39). At baseline there were no significant differences between groups for the total 10-point flourishing score (MedDiet 83.5 ± 2.01 vs HabDiet 82.1 ± 2.0) or 12-point secure flourishing score (MedDiet 100.6 ± 2.2 vs HabDiet 100.4 ± 2.2). At 6 months there was a significant between-group difference in total flourishing index scores with a mean difference of 6.97 points in the MedDiet group (MedDiet 85.8 ± 1.9 vs HabDiet 78.8 ± 1.8, P = 0.010). Similarly, the secure flourishing index score was 6.18 points higher in the MedDiet group compared to the HabDiet at 6-months (MedDiet 102.9 ± 2.2 vs HabDiet 96.8 ± 2.07, P = 0.046). Adhering to a MedDiet and walking intervention may lead to positive improvements to wellbeing in an older population. The flourishing index may need to be compared with other wellbeing questionnaires and instruments to better understand the relationship between wellbeing and MedDiet adherence as there was a cross-sectional association but no positive correlation at 6-months.

Teacher food and nutrition (FN) related factors include diet quality, health perceptions and FN attitudes. These factors are associated with both personal health and wellbeing, and teacher classroom FN practices. With Australian schoolteachers currently experiencing high levels of stress, anxiety and burnout, measuring and understanding the status of teacher FN-related health and wellbeing is needed. However, first there needs to be a comprehensive and validated tool to collect these data. This study aims to evaluate content validity of a new tool, the Teacher Food and Nutrition Questionnaire (TFNQ), to measure FN-related health and wellbeing of Australian schoolteachers. The TFNQ was developed following an extensive literature review of FN data collection methods previously used in schoolteacher populations internationally. It initially included 16 FN-related constructs alongside six constructs of wellbeing and mental health, and seven lifestyle covariates identified from the literature review. A two-round e-Delphi methodology was implemented using a mix of structured, rank-order and qualitative questions administered to an international, multidisciplinary group of experts via an online survey1. Descriptive statistics were used to derive a consensus vote (set at 75%) of constructs and covariates to be prioritised for inclusion. Qualitative feedback was analysed to identify areas of potential change. Twenty-three experts participated in round-one from Australia (n = 15), Switzerland (n = 3), The United Kingdom (n = 2), Canada (n = 1), The United States of America (n = 1) and New Zealand (n = 1). Of the 29 constructs and covariates evaluated in round-one of the e-Delphi, all achieved above 75% consensus, yet qualitative feedback indicated potential to reduce and streamline the number of constructs. Rank order questions and qualitative feedback resulted in the removal of four FN and two wellbeing constructs along with four lifestyle covariates. Round-two included 19 (83%) experts from round-one, with 83% (n = 15) in agreement regarding question order. Final feedback indicated only minor adjustments to question item phrasing. The e-Delphi process modified the TNFQ and established content validity. Further construct validity and reliability testing is required to produce a robust tool for measuring FN-related health and wellbeing of contemporary Australian schoolteachers.

This exploratory qualitative study aimed to evidence how community-based gardening groups can be used to support the psychological, physical and social health of those living with dementia. The views of people living with dementia in the community, care partners and group leaders were sought to better understand the benefits gained from gardening groups, as well as the features of gardening groups that are cited as enabling positive outcomes. Going beyond the existing single-group studies in this area, this research aimed to identify common themes across multiple gardening groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six group leaders, three people living with dementia and ten care partners from seven gardening groups, either in person or remotely. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts highlighted broad enablers – ‘the garden setting’, ‘features of activities’ and ‘organisational components’ – that were cited as facilitating a range of positive wellbeing outcomes, creating an environment that provides ‘physical and cognitive benefits’, ‘affirmation of identity’, ‘social connection’ and ‘benefits for care partners and others’. The wide-ranging benefits and enablers cited by participants within this research support the use of gardening groups as community-based interventions to reinforce positive psychological, physical and social outcomes for people with dementia. Themes also provide a clear framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of future gardening groups.