Estonia and Lithuania had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Central and Eastern Europe in 2023, at 0.72 and 0.7 points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Bosnia and Herzegovina scored the lowest among the presented CEE countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

According to the Digital Quality of Life Index, Singapore had the highest digital quality of life among countries in the Asia-Pacific region in 2023. In comparison, Cambodia scored the lowest among the assessed Asia-Pacific countries in 2023, reaching 0.31 index points.

Quality of Life Index (higher is better) is an estimation of overall quality of life by using an empirical formula which takes into account purchasing power index (higher is better), pollution index (lower is better), house price to income ratio (lower is better), cost of living index (lower is better), safety index (higher is better), health care index (higher is better), traffic commute time index (lower is better) and climate index (higher is better).

Current formula (written in Java programming language):

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 10 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

For details how purchasing power (including rent) index, pollution index, property price to income ratios, cost of living index, safety index, climate index, health index and traffic index are calculated please look up their respective pages.

Formulas used in the past

Formula used between June 2017 and Decembar 2017

We decided to decrease weight from costOfLivingIndex in this formula:

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 5 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for 2017 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

Quality of life index, link: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp

Happiness store, link: https://www.kaggle.com/unsdsn/world-happiness/home

In 2023, Uruguay and Chile had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Latin America and the Caribbean region, at 0.57 and 0.56 points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Venezuela and Honduras scored the lowest index among the presented countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

Harmonized data file as the basis for comparative analysis of quality of life in the Candidate Countries and the European Union member states, based on seven different data sets, one Eurobarometer survey covering 13 Candidate Countries with an identical set of variables conducted in April 2002, the other six Standard Eurobarometer of different subjects and fielded in different years, each with another set of questions identical with the CC Eurobarometer. Selected aggregate indicators of quality of life ... describing the social situation in the EU15 and Candidate Countries.

The countries are tentatively grouped according to affinities following a families of nations logic. The indicators were drawn from various sources, mainly provided by supranational organisations. They are grouped into six categories and recorded in the technical report (page 12 ff.):
(1) economy and employment;
(2) health;
(3) population and family;
(4) inequality and social problems;
(5) modernisation;
(6) political system.

Most indicators refer to the year 2000. Deviations from this rule are explained in the list of indicators, together with definitions, coding, and sources. The indicators are added to the harmonized EB data file for all 28 countries in order to provide an opportunity for multi-level analysis. Selected comprehensive indicators and relevant indices have been defined and constructed for quality of life and subjective well-being as well as for poverty and deprivation measures.

The CC-Eurobarometer contains several questions on the perceived income situation of a household and on the availability or lack of certain consumer goods. It also provides information on the perception of social integration and general acceptance.
(Source: Alber, Jens; Böhnke, Petra; Delhey, Jan; Fliegner, Florian; Gauckler, Britta; Habich, Roland; Keck, Wolfgang; Kohler, Ulrich; Nauenburg, Ricarda; Schiller, Sabine: Quality of Life in the European Union and the Candidate Countries. Technical Report. Results of data inspection, establishing a harmonized data file, recoding procedure and preparation of analysis. Hand-out for the first researchers’ meeting, Brussels, 4-5 March 2003.).

As of 2024, South Africa and Morocco scored highest in the Digital Quality of Life index in Africa, with 0.45 points each. Mauritius and Egypt followed closely with scores of 0.43 points and 0.42 points, respectively. African countries ranked significantly lower compared to other regions, with South Africa ranking 66th, while DR Congo came last in the 120th place.

Luxembourg stands out as the European leader in quality of life for 2025, achieving a score of 220 on the Quality of Life Index. The Netherlands follows closely behind with 211 points, while Albania and Ukraine rank at the bottom with scores of 104 and 115 respectively. This index provides a thorough assessment of living conditions across Europe, reflecting various factors that shape the overall well-being of populations and extending beyond purely economic metrics. Understanding the quality of life index The quality of life index is a multifaceted measure that incorporates factors such as purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, traffic conditions, and climate, to measure the overall quality of life of a Country. Higher overall index scores indicate better living conditions. However, in subindexes such as pollution, cost of living, and traffic commute time, lower values correspond to improved quality of life. Challenges affecting life satisfaction Despite the fact that European countries register high levels of life quality by for example leading the ranking of happiest countries in the world, life satisfaction across the European Union has been on a downward trend since 2018. The EU's overall life satisfaction score dropped from 7.3 out of 10 in 2018 to 7.1 in 2022. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges such as high inflation. Rising housing costs, in particular, have emerged as a critical concern, significantly affecting quality of life. This issue has played a central role in shaping voter priorities for the European Parliamentary Elections in 2024 and becoming one of the most pressing challenges for Europeans, profoundly influencing both daily experiences and long-term well-being.

There is more to life than the cold numbers of GDP and economic statistics. This dataset contains the 2018 data of the Better Life Index which allows you to compare well-being across countries as well as measuring well-being, based on 11 topics the OECD has identified as essential, in the areas of material living conditions and quality of life. Abstract: Your Better Life Index aims to involve citizens in the debate on measuring the well-being of societies, and to empower them to become more informed and engaged in the policy-making process that shapes all our lives. Each of the 11 topics of the Index is currently based on one to three indicators. Within each topic, the indicators are averaged with equal weights. The indicators have been chosen on the basis of a number of statistical criteria such as relevance (face-validity, depth, policy relevance) and data quality (predictive validity, coverage, timeliness, cross-country comparability etc.) and in consultation with OECD member countries. These indicators are good measures of the concepts of well-being, in particular in the context of a country comparative exercise. Other indicators will gradually be added to each topic. Notes: Data cannot be compared between different editions of the Better Life Index. For more information on change over time, please contact wellbeing@oecd.org.

According to a survey from 2020, Thailand was the country where people had a higher quality of life among the selected Asia Pacific countries, with 35 percent of the respondents achieving a relatively high quality of life, based on the methodology of the survey. In comparison, 72 percent of respondents in Hong Kong had a relatively low quality of life.

Data was initially taken from Numbeo as an aggregation of user voting.

• Quality of Life Index varies from 0 (bad quality) to 190 (top good quality)

This dataset is one of the public parts of City API project data. Need more? Try our full data

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

Wellbeing in Developing Countries is a series of studies which aim to develop a conceptual and methodological approach to understanding the social and cultural construction of wellbeing in developing countries. The Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Group (WeD), based at the University of Bath, drew on knowledge and expertise from three different departments (Economics and International Development, Social and Policy Sciences and Psychology) as well as a network of overseas contacts. The international, interdisciplinary team formed a major programme of comparative research, focused on six communities in each of four countries: Ethiopia, Thailand, Peru and Bangladesh. All sites within the countries have been given anonymous site names, with the exception of Ethiopia where the team chose to follow an alternative locally agreed procedure on anonymisation. Data can be matched across studies using the HOUSEKEY (Site code and household number).

The research raises fundamental questions both for the academic study of development, and for the policy community. The WeD arrived at the following definition of wellbeing through their research: "Wellbeing is a state of being with others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one's goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life".

Further information about the project can be found on the WeD website and the ESRC Award webpage.

Wellbeing in Developing Countries: Quality of Life, 2004-2005 comprises the Quality of Life (QoL) Survey which was carried out in each of the four countries. The QoL was administered to approx 370 men and women in each country (approximately 60 per research site) in the local language by a team of interviewers selected by each of the country teams. The majority of respondents also completed the other surveys that form part of this research project and are available from the UKDA under GN 33394. The remainder were sampled proportionately according to age, socio-economic status, ethnicity and religion. For each country there is one data file at the individual level.


Main Topics:

Topics covered include:

• positive and negative affect Scale (PANAS)
• goals
• satisfaction with goal attainment
• values (both individual and group)
• satisfaction with life scale (SWLS)

The dataset presents information on life expectancy in selected countries in 10-year periods. The list covers the years 1950-2020. The dataset also includes GDP values ​​per capita in a given country in the years studied.

The European Quality of Life survey (EQLS) examines both the objective circumstances of European citizens' lives, and how they feel about those circumstances, and their lives in general. It looks at a range of issues, such as employment, income, education, housing, family, health and work-life balance. It also looks at subjective topics, such as people's levels of happiness, how satisfied they are with their lives, and how they perceive the quality of their societies. The survey is carried out every four years.The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) commissioned GfK EU3C to carry out the survey. The survey was carried in the 27 European Member States (EU27), and the survey was also implemented in seven non-EU countries. The survey covers residents aged 18 and over. A selection of key findings from the 2010/11 data released in July 2013 are presented in this briefing: The socio-economic position of Londoners in Europe: An analysis of the 2011 European Quality of Life Survey. For the purposes of the rankings in this report, London is treated as a 35th European country.The themes covered in the analysis below are: volunteering, community relations, trust in society, public services ratings, well-being, health, wealth and poverty, housing, and skills and employment. The tables following the analysis on page 4 show figures and rankings for: - London, - rest of the UK, - Europe average, - the highest ranked country, and - the lowest ranked country. Internet use data for all European NUTS1 areas included in spreadsheet. Note figures based on low sample sizes marked in pink.

The OECD's Better Life Index allows users to compare wellbeing across countries based on 11 topics identified as determinants for material living conditions and quality of life: housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work-life balance. Each topic is based on one to three indicators, and the indicators are averaged with equal weights.

In a 2023 global evaluation called the Digital Quality of Life index covering 121 countries, India scored an average of 0.52 points in five digital aspects. The country ranked 52nd globally and 13th in Asia. E-government and electronic infrastructure were the country's strengths.

The Foundation continues its initiative to monitor and report on living conditions and quality of life in Europe.

28-country 'Quality of life in Europe' survey

The European quality of life survey (EQLS) that was carried out in 2003 covered 28 countries and involved interviewing 26,000 people. The survey examined a range of issues, such as employment, income, education, housing, family, health, work-life balance, life satisfaction and perceived quality of society.

Survey results

The main findings have been published in a series of analytical reports, providing a unique insight into the quality of life in 28 European countries.

The Social Progress Index ranks countries based on the well-being and quality of life of their citizens, considering factors such as access to education, healthcare, human rights, and environmental sustainability.

Background: A cancer patient's quality of life (QoL) is the perception of their physical, functional, psychological, and social well-being as well as their mental and emotional state. QoL is one of the most important factors to consider when a person is being treated for cancer and during follow-up. The present study aimed to understand the status of QoL of cancer patients and determine the factors affecting it. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 210 cancer patients attending the oncology unit of a medical college, within a 4-month consecutive time period in 2022. Data were collected by using the Bengali version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire. Results: The present study reported a high number of female cancer patients (67.6%). Breast cancer was more common among females (31.43%) while lung and upper respiratory tract cancer was among males (19.05). Most of the patients in the present study were diagnosed with cancer in the past year (86.19%). The functional scales' overall mean scores varied from 54.92 for physical functioning to 38.89 for social functioning. The highest symptom scale score was for financial issues (63.02), while the lowest was for diarrhea (33.01). The overall QoL of cancer patients in the present study was 47.98 which was 45.71 for males and 49.10 for females respectively.
Conclusion: The overall QoL was poor in cancer patients in the present study compared to the developed countries. There was a low score for QoL for social and emotional function. Financial difficulty was the primary reason behind low QoL in the symptom scale. If the government supports cancer patients by providing subsidies for treatment and health insurance policies, cancer patients will benefit and QoL will improve. Methods The study proposal and consent form were approved by the Ethics Committee. The present study was conducted in the Oncology Unit of a medical college within a 4-month consecutive time period in 2022. The expected number of new cancer patients visiting the department was 400 during the study period. We chose p = 0.50, q = 0.50, Z = 1.96, and E = 0.04 for N = 400, and the minimum sample size was calculated to be n = 196. For the purpose of this study, permission was sought from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to use the Bengali version of their EORTC QLQ C30 questionnaire. EORTC provided the research tool and scoring manuals for the study. The 30-item questionnaire covers 15 domains which consist of five functioning scales (physical functioning, social functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, and cognitive functioning) and nine symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, sleep disturbances, appetite loss, diarrhea, constipation, and financial difficulties) and one global health status/ quality of life scale.(Aaronson et al., 1993) Strong scores on the functioning and global health status/QoL scales on the 100-point meter suggest high QoL, whereas high scores on the symptom scales indicate a high symptom burden.(Fayers PM et al., 2001) Data were collected 2 days each week. All adult patients who came to the outpatient clinic and all patients newly admitted to the inpatient clinic on those days were administered the questionnaire in person by the first author. The study objective was explained to the patients and verbal consent was obtained. Patients who were interviewed for this study previously, those who could not provide consent (unconscious), patients with suspected cancer but without a confirmed report, and patients less than 18 years of age were excluded. Socio-demographic characteristics such as age at treatment, gender, marital status, religion, economic status, and education were obtained from the patients. The information on clinical status such as the site of the primary tumor, stage of the tumor, and type of treatment was recorded from the clinical documentation.

According to the survey, as of February 2023, four out of the six countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council ranked amongst the top ** in the world for expatriate quality of life. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates topped the list for quality of life, whereas Saudi Arabia and Kuwait came last in the region. Quality of life; an amalgamation of many metrics Since quality of life is dependent on many indicators, it can give us a good insight into many aspects of state welfare policies and services. Saudi Arabia, where the number of foreign workers in the private sector topped *** million, also ranked as having one of the region's lowest quality of life for expatriates. Qatar, which had the second-highest quality of life for expatriates living in the GCC, was ranked as one of the most challenging countries in the region for ease of settling in. The UAE and Qatar, both of which ranked the highest in the survey, also have the highest average salaries and living standards in the region. Foreign workers are a key pillar of the GCC economy Countries in the GCC all have sizable expatriate populations for which their economies are heavily reliant. Roughly ********** of the workforce in the GCC is foreign. Although the share of foreign workers in the GCC has slightly decreased in recent years, they still considerably outweigh the local workforce. Most of these workers comprise the unskilled portion of the occupational category in the GCC. However, with diversifying investments and programs such as Vision 2030, countries have seen a rise in the number of skilled foreign workers.

Using a multilevel modelling approach to analyse a novel dataset of academic publications at all business schools in 11 European countries, this paper finds that the influence of organisational- and country-level contextual factors on researchers varies considerably based on the type of institution and the development level of the country they are located in. At the organisational-level, we find that greater spatial connectivity–operationalised through proximity to nearby business schools, rail stations, and airports–is positively related to scientific research volume and public dissemination (news mentions). While this result is significant only for high-income countries (above EU-average 2018 GDP per capita), this is likely because the low-income countries (below EU-average 2018 GDP per capita) examined here lack a ‘critical mass’ of well-connected universities to generate observable agglomeration effects. At the country-level, the results indicate that in high-income countries, less prestigious schools benefit from higher rates of recent international immigration from any foreign country, providing a direct policy pathway for increasing research output for universities that aren’t already well-known enough to attract the most talented researchers. In low-income countries, recent immigration rates are even stronger predictors of research performance across all levels of institutional prestige; more open immigration policies would likely benefit research performance in these countries to an even greater extent. Finally, the paper’s results show that, in low-income countries, a composite measure of a country’s quality of life (including self-rated life satisfaction, health, working hours, and housing overcrowding) is positively related to research outcomes through its interaction with school prestige. This suggests that the lower a country’s quality of life, the more researchers are incentivised to produce higher levels of research output. While this may in part reflect the greater disparities inherent in these countries’ economic systems, it is noteworthy–and perhaps concerning–that we have observed a negative correlation between country-level quality of life and research performance in low-income countries, which is particularly felt by researchers at less prestigious institutions.