Introduction
For over two decades, the phenomenon of population aging, often referred to as a demographic revolution, has been observed worldwide. Projections indicate that the global elderly population will experience significant growth in the coming decades, and Iran is no exception to this trend. Before this demographic shift imposes a substantial burden on the socio-economic systems of societies, it is essential to revise policies in line with this transformation. Enhancing the well-being of the elderly has emerged as a policy priority since the beginning of the 21st century, with numerous global indicators developed to address this issue. Considering the multidimensional and diverse nature of well-being, encompassing both subjective and objective aspects, this study identifies the dimensions, components, and indicators associated with elderly well-being, recognize existing research gaps, and synthesize studies conducted in this area.

Methods
This study identified all relevant research on the well-being of the elderly, including its dimensions, indicators, and components, using a scoping review approach based on the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) protocol. The methodology involved six stages: formulating the research question, searching and identifying studies, selecting relevant studies from initial searches, extracting data through charts and tables, collating, summarizing, and reporting findings, and consulting experts (optional stage). The research question focused on exploring approaches, dimensions, indicators, and components of elderly well-being in existing studies. Searches were conducted for the period from 2000 to 2023 in Gregorian years and 1380 to 1401 in the Persian calendar.
Databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Persian sources like Scientific Information Database (SID), Magiran, Irandoc, Ensani Portal, and NoorMags were searched. Keywords in English included “social welfare,” “well-being,” “being well,” “welfare,” “elderly,” “seniors,” “aged,” and in Persian, equivalents such as “kohan-sal,” “pir,” “salkhordeh,” “refah,” “behzisti,” “behzistan,” and “salmandan.”
Websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), Iran Statistical Center, Iran Welfare Organization, and the Ministry of Health, Treatment, and Medical Education were also reviewed for relevant reports, along with manual searches of specialized journals and reference lists of related articles.
Two authors conducted a three-stage screening process to review and filter the studies. From an initial pool of 6133 English articles, 8623 Persian articles, and 29 studies identified through manual searches, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria after title, abstract, and full-text screening. Data from these studies were categorized in Excel, detailing study titles, authorship, year of publication, location, sample size, methodology, and dimensions, indicators, and components of well-being.

Results
Out of 14 756 articles from database searches and 29 manually identified studies, only 25 met the inclusion criteria. Geographically, 16% of the studies (4) were conducted in the United States, 36% (9) in Asia, 36% (9) in Europe, and 8% (2) in Oceania (New Zealand). One study focused on elderly well-being indicators at a global level, covering 96 countries.
Regarding methodology, 20% of the studies (5) were surveys, 36% (9) used secondary data analysis, 16% (4) employed qualitative methods (e.g. interviews, observations, phenomenology), 16% (4) developed composite indices, and 8% (2) combined multiple methods. One longitudinal study spanned four years, following a cohort of elderly individuals.
The concept of well-being was examined using subjective approaches in 8 studies, objective approaches in 5 studies, and a combination of both in 12 studies. The objective approach emphasized key dimensions such as health dimension which include physical health, physical activity, elder care insurance, self-assessment of health status, independence in daily activities, healthcare services, life expectancy, lifestyle, mental health, and healthcare costs; social dimension that include social support, social capital, social interactions, family living conditions, citizenship rights, and ethnicity; living environment and leisure that include interaction with the living environment, environmental quality, recreational activities, and migration; economic dimension that include elderly poverty, income security, socio-economic status, financial resources, and inequality; and resources and capabilities which include employment, education, achievements, and skills. Subjective well-being was explored through three perspectives, namely evaluative, hedonic, and eudaimonic.

Conclusion
This study identified approaches, indicators, and components of well-being in aging studies. Despite the absence of a unified definition of well-being and the diversity of indicators and components, most studies considered both subjective and objective approaches to well-being. By synthesizing findings and applying the framework developed by Laplaza et al., a conceptual model for elderly well-being can be proposed. This framework delineates individual, family, local community, and societal levels, incorporating culturally and socio-economically relevant indicators. These indicators should be monitored and adapted to align with evolving social, economic, cultural, and technological changes. Adopting such a perspective will enable effective policy-making and planning in the field of aging in the coming decades.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Code: IR.USWR.REC.1401.064).

Funding
This study was taken from the PhD. dissertation of Faezeh Joghataei, approved by the Department of Social Welfare Management, School of Educational Sciences and Social Welfare, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Authors' contributions
All authors equally contribute to preparing all parts of the research.

Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their special thanks to Iranian Research Center on Aging, Tehran, Iran who support this research.


References

1. United Nations. World population ageing 2013. New York: United Nations; 2013. [Link]
2. Beladi Mousavi S. [The situation of the elderly in Iran (Persian)]. Tehran: Statistical Centre of Iran; 2017. [Link]
3. Planning and Budget Organization. [National document for the elderly of the country (Persian)]. Tehran: Secretariat of the National Council of the Elderly; 2020. [Link]
4. Bar-Tur L. Fostering well-being in the elderly: Translating theories on positive aging to practical approaches. Frontiers in Medicine. 2021; 8:517226. [DOI:10.3389/fmed.2021.517226]
5. United Nations. Madrid plan of action and its implementation [Internet]. 2002 [Update 2002 April 16]. Available from: [Link]
6. Stanley M, Cheek J. Well-being and older people: A review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2003; 70(1):51-9. [DOI:10.1177/000841740307000107]
7. Dodge R, P. Daly A, Huyton J, D. Sanders L. APD, Jan Huyton, Lalage D. The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2012; 2(3):222-35. [DOI:10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4]
8. King P. Ewas working paper series: The concept of wellbeing and its application in a study of ageing in aotearoa new zealand. Wellington: Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit; 2007. [Link]
9. Oman S. Understanding well-being data: Improving social and cultural policy, practice and research. London: Springer Nature; 2021. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-72937-0]
10. Kim ES, Tkatch R, Martin D, MacLeod S, Sandy L, Yeh C. Resilient aging: Psychological well-being and social well-being as targets for the promotion of healthy aging. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine. 2021; 7:23337214211002951. [DOI:10.1177/23337214211002951]
11. La Placa V, McNaught A, Knight A. Discourse on wellbeing in research and practice. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2013; 3(1):116-25. [DOI:10.5502/ijw.v3i1.7]
12. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8(1):19-32. [DOI:10.1080/1364557032000119616]
13. Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020; 18(10):2119-26. [DOI:10.11124/JBIES-20-00167]
14. Mosadeghrad AM, Esfahani P, Afshari M. [Strategies to improve hospital efficiency in Iran: A scoping review (Persian)]. Payesh. 2016; 1(18):7-21. [Link]
15. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2015; 13(3):141-6. [DOI:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050]
16. World Health Organization (WHO). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being: An initiative by the WHO regional office for Europe: Second meeting of the expert group: Paris, France, 25-26 June 2012. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. [Link]
17. Banks J, Blundell R, Emmerson C, Oldfield Z. State pensions and the well-being of the elderly in the UK. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies; 2006. [Link]
18. King P. The concept of wellbeing and its application in a study of ageing in Aotearoa New Zealand. Enhancing Wellbeing in an Ageing Society (EWAS); 2007. [Link]
19. Koopman-Boyden PG, van der Pas S, Cameron MP. Wellbeing-social connectedness and economic standard of living among 65-84 year olds in New Zealand-2007. Enhancing Wellbeing in an Ageing Society (EWAS); 2007. [Link]
20. Karasawa M, Curhan KB, Markus HR, Kitayama SS, Love GD, Radler BT, et al. Cultural perspectives on aging and well-being: A comparison of Japan and the United States. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2011; 73(1):73-98. [DOI:10.2190/AG.73.1.d]
21. Kaneda T, Lee M, Pollard K. SCL/PRB index of well-being in older populations. Washington: Population Reference Bureau; 2011. [Link]
22. Svensson AM, Mårtensson LB, Hellström Muhli UH. Well-being dialogue: Elderly women’s subjective sense of well-being from their course of life perspective. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 2012; 7(1):19207. [DOI:10.3402/qhw.v7i0.19207]
23. Cruz-Martínez G, Cerev G. The global agewatch index. In: Gu D, Dupre M, editors. Encyclopedia of gerontology and population aging. Berlin: Springer; 2019. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_229-1]
24. Mousavi MT, Mohaqeqi Kamal H, Vameghi M, Rafiey H, Sahaf R, Mohammadi MA, et al. [Dimensions, components and indicators of social welfare in elderly: Looking for a composite index (Persian)]. Social Welfare. 2016; 16(60):173-201. [Link]
25. Burtless G. Trends in the well-being of the aged and their prospects through 2030. Forum for Health Economics and Policy. 2015; 18(2):97-118. [DOI:10.1515/fhep-2015-0039]
26. Steptoe A, Deaton A, Stone AA. Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet. 2015; 385(9968):640-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0]
27. Mousavi M, Rafiey H, Sahaf R, Mohammadi MA, Vameghi M, Mohaqeqi H, et al. How do Iranian elderly people conceptualize social welfare? A content analysis study. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine. 2018; 7(10):63. [DOI:10.5742/MEWFM.2018.93312]
28. Wettstein M, Schilling OK, Reidick O, Wahl HW. Four-year stability, change, and multidirectionality of well-being in very-old age. Psychology and Aging. 2015; 30(3):500-16. [DOI:10.1037/pag0000037]
29. Iman MT, Shirdel E. The experience of emotional well-being of the elderly people residing in nursing homes: A phenomenological study. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences. 2020; 6(3):277-95. [Link]
30. Ladusingh L, Ngangbam S. Domains and determinants of well-being of older adults in India. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 2016; 31:89-111. [DOI:10.1007/s10823-016-9279-z]
31. Pothisiri W, Quashie NT. Preparations for old age and well-being in later life in Thailand: Gender matters? Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2018; 37(6):783-810. [DOI:10.1177/0733464816649281]
32. Hüse L, Huszti É, Toldi A, Takács P. Elements of the elderly’s subjective well-being-An international comparison focusing on the member countries of the Visegrad group. Kontakt. 2016; 18(3):e184-93. [DOI:10.1016/j.kontakt.2016.07.005]
33. Frolova EA, Malanina VA. Social wellbeing of elderly people in Russia. SHS Web of Conferences; 2016; 28: 01038. [DOI:10.1051/shsconf/20162801038]
34. Mohaqeqi Kamal SH, Alamdari SM, Basakha M, Zanjari N, Harouni GG. Measuring social well-being among the older adults: Introducing a composite index. Advances in Gerontology. 2024; 37(3):187-97. [PMID]
35. Age Uk. Index of wellbeing in later life [Internet]. 2017 [Updated 2024 November 1]. Available from: [Link]
36. Rachmad SH, Tantriana A. IAOS 2018-The measurement of well-being index of older people in Indonesia, Tantriana, S.H. Rachmad, A. Tantriana. 2018. Paper presented in: IAOS-OECD 2018 conference; 21 September 2018; Paris, France. [Link]
37. Moreno-Agostino D, de la Torre-Luque A, de la Fuente J, Lara E, Martín-María N, Moneta MV, et al. Determinants of subjective wellbeing trajectories in older adults: A growth mixture modeling approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2021; 22:709-26. [DOI:10.1007/s10902-020-00248-2]
38. Statistics FIFoA-R, editor Older Americans 2008: Key indicators of well-being. Washington: Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics; 2008. [Link]
39. Fritzell J, Lennartsson C, Zaidi A. Trends and inequality in the new active ageing and well-being index of the oldest old: A case study of Sweden. Journal of Population Ageing. 2021; 14(1):5-22. [DOI:10.1007/s12062-020-09264-9]
40. Aryati S, Khoiruluswati NM, Christianawati A. The meaning of elderly welfare at Budi Dharma nursing home in Yogyakarta. Earth and Environmental Science. 2020; 451:012042. [DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/451/1/012042]
41. Forgeard MJ, Jayawickreme E, Kern ML, Seligman ME. Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2011; 1(1):79-106. [DOI:10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15]
42. Help Age International. Global agewatch insight: The right to health for older people, the right to be counted. London: Help Age International; 2018. [Link]
43. Diener E, Suh E. Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research. 1997; 40:189-216. [DOI:10.1023/A:1006859511756]
44. McNaught A, Knight A. Defining wellbeing: Understanding wellbeing: An introduction for students and practitioners of health and social care. Bloxham: Scion Publishing; 2011. [Link]
45. Pollard EL, Lee PD. Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research. 2003; 61:59-78. [DOI:10.1023/A:1021284215801]
46. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi JP. Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress; 2009. [Link]
47. Ameri G, Govari F, Nazari T, Rashidinejad M, Afsharzadeh P. [The adult age theories and definitions (Persian)]. Hayat. 2002; 8(1):4-13. [Link]
48. Sharafi M, Fadakar Davarani MM, Tohidi Nik H, Farvahari A, Borhaninejad VR. [Facilitating and inhibiting factors of social participation in the elderly based on health-promoting behaviors: A cross-sectional study (Persian)]. Salmand. 2022; 17(3):304-21. [DOI:10.32598/sija.2022.1116.7]
49. Vatankhah S, Naghdi S, Ghiasvand H, Armoon B, Ahounabr E. Current cigarette smoking among Iranian elders; what are the prevalence, inequality and socioeconomic determinants? An analysis on Iranian rural and urban income-expenditure survey 2017. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2020; 38(3):257-62. [DOI:10.1080/10550887.2020.1747932]
50. Vaisi-Raygani A, Mohammadi M, Jalali R, Ghobadi A, Salari N. The prevalence of obesity in older adults in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatrics. 2019; 19(37):1-9.[DOI:10.1186/s12877-019-1396-4]
51. Zarif-Yeganeh M, Kargar M, Rashidian A, Jafarzadeh Kohneloo A, Gholami K. Out of pocket payment and affordability of medication for geriatric patients in Tehran, Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2019; 48(6):1124-32. [PMID] [PMCID]
52. Rabiei M, Masoudi Rad H, Homaie Rad E, Ashourizadeh S. Dental status of the Iranian elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2019; 10(4):e12459. [DOI:10.1111/jicd.12459]
53. Zhao L, Wu L. The association between social participation and loneliness of the Chinese older adults over time-The mediating effect of social support. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(2):815. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph19020815]
54. Jayawardhana T, Anuththara S, Nimnadi T, Karadanaarachchi R, Jayathilaka R, Galappaththi K. Asian ageing: The relationship between the elderly population and economic growth in the Asian context. Plos One. 2023; 18(4):e0284895. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0284895]
55. Goll JC, Charlesworth G, Scior K, Stott J. Barriers to social participation among lonely older adults: The influence of social fears and identity. Plos One. 2015; 10(2):e0116664. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0116664]
56. Rochelle TL. Social participation, loneliness and well-being among older adults in Hong Kong: A longitudinal examination. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2023; 28(10):2927-37. [DOI:10.1080/13548506.2022.2058028]
57. United Nations. Economic Inequalities in Old Age. New York: United Nations; 2015. [Link]
58. Marta Roig DM. Global Dialogue for Social Development Branch Division for Inclusive Social Development. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2022.
59. World Health Organization (WHO). Global age-friendly cities: A guide [Internet]. 2007 [Updated 2007 October 5]. Available from: [Link]
60. Boulton-Lewis GM. Education and learning for the elderly: Why, how, what. Educational Gerontology,. 2010; 36(3):213-28.[DOI:10.1080/03601270903182877]
61. Dench S, Regan J. Learning in later life: Motivation and impact. Nottingham: Department for Education and Employment; 2000. [Link]

62. Basakha M, Mohaqeqi Kamal H, Pashazadeh H. [Acceptance of information and communication technology by the elderly people living in Tehran (Persian)]. Salmand. 2019; 13(5):550-63. [DOI:10.32598/SIJA.13.Special-Issue.550]
63. Rajan SI, Devi A, Samanta T, Sunitha S. Antecedents of subjective wellbeing among older adults in Kerala. In: Samanta T, editor. Cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary perspectives in social gerontology. Berlin: Springer; 2017. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-1654-7_8]