Well-Being in France – Report 2025

🔍💡 Well-Being in France 2025: decline in job satisfaction, generational pessimism but social ties still protective for vulnerable groups. #WellBeing #MentalHealth 

📊🤝 Loneliness, youth in tension, malaise at work: detailed data to guide local health plans, prevention actions and social support. #HealthPrevention #SocialInequalities

🔍➕ This report provides a synthetic, quantified and regular overview of the morale and well-being of the French, useful for professionals in local authorities, ARS, CPTS, social centres or associations wishing to objectify their territorial diagnoses. It sheds light on the issues of malaise at work, youth in tension, loneliness and heritage, directly linked to the social determinants of health. A CLS coordinator, a prevention officer in a community or a manager of a medico-social structure can use it to argue a project, prioritise groups or design actions to support social ties and mental health.

Source: 📒 Well-Being in France – Report 2025

  📜🔗LINK

1. Analytical summary

Context and issues: a contrasting well-being

The report describes a 2025 marked by a significant decline in job satisfaction, affecting all active generations, while the sense that life has meaning remains generally high. Short-term well-being expectations follow the economic situation, but the outlook for the next generation continues to deteriorate, particularly among those under 65, marking a lasting intergenerational pessimism. The document highlights the relative strength of ties with loved ones, the feeling of being able to rely on someone, and introduces a measure of sociability based on shared meals, showing that about 10% of people did not share any meals in the previous week. The thematic chapters successively address the morale of the French, politics and polarization, heritage and security, youth, workplace malaise, health in the digital age, and a dashboard of indicators. Overall, it offers a reading of French society where tensions focus on work, the future, and transmission, while resources lie in sociability and the meaning given to life.

Operational contributions: data for action

For field actors, the report provides results from regular quantitative surveys (CAMME survey, module linked to the Insee economic survey) that allow for tracking life satisfaction, happiness, meaning, loneliness, trust, expectations, and work experience over time. The chapters "Measuring Well-being", "A Youth in Tension", "Discontent at Work" and "Health: Human and Digital" provide actionable analyses on the links between employment, unemployment, type of status, level of education, use of social networks, housing or assets, and various indicators of well-being. The new measure of the number of weekly shared meals offers a simple indicator of social connection, strongly correlated with life satisfaction, the sense of meaning, and the reduction of depression and loneliness, which can be locally adopted to monitor conviviality. The final dashboard consolidates key indicators, facilitating their use in local diagnostics or project arguments. For local authorities, health or social structures, these elements justify actions focused on working conditions, the prevention of psychological distress, support for youth, and the strengthening of local conviviality.

2. Key Points of the Document

1. The report highlights a collapse in job satisfaction in 2025, after years of stability, without a parallel decline in the sense of meaning or work-life balance, which points to a crisis in work organisation and recognition rather than a rejection of work itself (pp. 6-7, 18-21).

2. Short-term well-being expectations remain correlated with the economic situation, but the outlook for the next generation reaches a low point at the end of 2025, particularly among those under 65, revealing a lasting pessimism and a central issue for public policies (p. 6-7, 10, 15-17, 25-27).

3. The feeling that life has meaning averages at 7 out of 10, remains more stable than life satisfaction, and strongly depends on activity (employment, unemployment, disability, retirement), couple life, the presence of children, and the employment sector, with a marked advantage for the public sector, particularly in medical and social fields (p. 8-9).

4. The introduction of a question about the number of shared meals shows that about half of the French share almost all of their meals, while 10% do not share any in a week, and the frequency of shared meals is strongly correlated with all indicators of subjective well-being (satisfaction, happiness, depression, loneliness) (p. 9, 22-24).

5. The final dashboard aggregates the main indicators (life satisfaction, happiness, meaning, future prospects, trust, job satisfaction, loneliness, etc.), providing a synthetic tool to track the evolution of well-being in France and inform diagnostics and policy evaluations (p. 25-32).

3. Action points for local stakeholders

1. Integrate indicators of subjective well-being (life satisfaction, sense of meaning, future prospects) into territorial health and social cohesion diagnostics, relying on the structure of questions used by the Observatory to adapt local surveys for residents (p. 5-8, 25-27).

2. Develop targeted actions addressing workplace well-being (discussion spaces, managerial support, prevention of psychosocial risks) in healthcare facilities, medico-social structures, local authorities, and associations, prioritising groups identified as experiencing a significant decline in job satisfaction (p. 6-7, 18-21).

3. Strengthen support systems for youth (guidance, mental health, integration, support for transitions) in schools, local missions, youth structures, and social centres, taking into account the specific tensions identified among young people and the gap in perspectives between generations (p. 15-17).

4. Implement or support actions that promote daily conviviality and meal sharing (solidarity canteens, neighbourhood meals, intergenerational cooking workshops, social cafés, accompanied meal times for elderly or isolated individuals) as explicit levers for reducing loneliness and improving well-being (p. 9, 22-24).

5. Use the dashboard and profiles by socio-demographic variables to target interventions at the most vulnerable groups (isolated individuals, unemployed people, workers under significant stress, low-income individuals) and to track over time the impact of local health plans, social projects, or policies aimed at combating precariousness (p. 12-13, 18-21, 25-27).

4. Additional References

1. Gouvernement de la République française, « Une photographie du bien‑être psychologique des Français », Grande cause nationale 2025, Paris, 2025, environ 40 pages, en ligne et accessible au 23/03/2026 : https://www.info.gouv.fr/upload/media/mixed/0001/16/387c564e773a56dbde26a6e5f0df3328710fcd9a.pdf.

2. CNSA, « Bien‑être psychologique : comprendre et agir », livrable de mars 2025, guide opérationnel pour les acteurs de l’autonomie, accessible au 23/03/2026 : https://www.cnsa.fr/sites/default/files/2025-04/CNSA-livrable-bien-etre-psychologique-VF-accessible.pdf.

3. Santé publique France, « La Santé en action, n°471 – Santé mentale : comprendre les déterminants pour agir », octobre 2025, revue thématique proposant des approches de promotion de la santé mentale en population, accessible au 23/03/2026 via : https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/import/la-sante-en-action-octobre-2025-n-471-sante-mentale-comprendre-les-determinants-pour-agir

5. Analyse transversale — valeurs de Pratiques en Santé

• Littératie : le rapport utilise une écriture accessible, des graphiques et un tableau de bord, mais reste un document expert sans dispositifs spécifiques d’adaptation aux faibles niveaux de littératie (p. 5‑8, 25‑27).

• Empowerment : les bénéficiaires sont interrogés par enquête statistique, mais peu impliqués dans la conception des indicateurs ou l’interprétation, l’angle restant centré sur l’analyse de chercheurs (p. 5‑9).

• Participation : le document ne décrit pas de dispositifs de co‑construction des politiques avec les citoyens, il fournit surtout des éléments pour éclairer le débat public (p. 5‑7).

• Santé communautaire : la dimension collective apparaît via la convivialité, les liens sociaux et la solitude, mais sans description détaillée de démarches communautaires locales (p. 9, 22‑24).

• Éthique : les écarts de bien‑être selon revenu, diplôme, âge, activité, genre ou composition familiale sont identifiés, mais la question des biais culturels est peu développée en tant que telle (p. 6‑9, 12‑17).

• Droits humains : le rapport traite d’équité, d’inégalités et de vulnérabilités de manière implicite, sans cadre explicite « droits humains », mais en soulignant les écarts de bien‑être entre groupes (p. 12‑17, 18‑21).

• Intersectorialité : le document insiste sur les liens entre économie, politique, travail, éducation, santé et lien social, suggérant une approche intersectorielle sans détailler de dispositifs précis (p. 6‑7, 10‑13, 15‑21).

• Partenariat : les partenariats sont surtout scientifiques (Insee, chercheurs de plusieurs institutions), sans modélisation de partenariats opérationnels terrain (p. 5‑7).

• Lutte contre les discriminations : certaines inégalités (âge, statut, revenu, isolement, genre) sont décrites, mais la discrimination en tant que telle n’est pas un axe central, et les notions de non‑jugement ou diversité n’apparaissent qu’en filigrane (p. 12‑17, 22‑24).

6. Évaluation de la fiabilité de la ressource

Pertinence scientifique : le rapport est produit par l’Observatoire du bien‑être au Cepremap, structure reconnue, s’appuyant sur des enquêtes représentatives (module adossé à l’enquête Insee, enquête CAMME) et des méthodes quantitatives de type régression, avec des analyses publiées en notes thématiques numérotées. Les données sont récentes (janvier 2025 à février 2026) et articulées avec des références internationales comme le World Happiness Report, ce qui assure une actualité et une robustesse scientifiques.

Operational relevance: although written in research language, the report provides figures, trends, and indicators that can be directly mobilised for advocacy, territorial diagnostics, prioritisation of target groups, and the design of actions around work, youth, sociability, and mental health. The operational limitations mainly stem from the absence of practical sheets or detailed examples of local actions, which requires translation work by field actors.

7. Multiple Choice Questions — 5 questions

Part 1 — Multiple Choice Questions without answers

Question 1 (pp. 6-7): In 2025, which dimension of well-being experiences the most marked break according to the report?

a) Satisfaction regarding physical health

b) Satisfaction regarding one's work

c) The feeling that life has meaning

d) Satisfaction regarding leisure

Question 2 (pp. 7-8): What are short-term well-being expectations primarily related to?

a) The weather and the seasons

b) The evolution of digital technologies

c) The economic situation

d) The average level of education

Question 3 (pp. 8-9): Which factor is the least determining for the feeling of meaning, all else being equal?

a) The standard of living

b) Activity (employment, unemployment, retirement)

c) Couple life and the presence of children

d) The level of education, particularly a doctorate

Question 4 (pp. 9, 22-24): What observation is made regarding meal sharing in France?

a) 50% of French people have not shared any meals in a week

b) 25% of French people share all their meals only with colleagues

c) About 10% of people did not share any meals in a week

d) Sharing meals is unrelated to the feeling of loneliness

Question 5 (p. 25‑27): What is the purpose of the dashboard presented at the end of the report?

a) To propose a detailed budget for public policies

b) To group the main indicators of well-being to track their evolution

c) To list the local health projects carried out in 2025

d) To describe the clinical protocols for individual care

Part 2 — Commented correction

Question 1: In 2025, which dimension of well-being experiences the most marked break according to the report?

✅ Correct answer: b) Job satisfaction

📝 Explanation: The report highlights a collapse in job satisfaction in 2025, affecting all active generations, while other dimensions such as the sense of purpose or work-life balance remain stable. Source: p. 6‑7.

Question 2: What are short-term well-being expectations primarily related to?

✅ Correct answer: c) The economic situation

📝 Explanation: The authors indicate that short-term well-being expectations evolve in parallel with the synthetic confidence index of households from Insee, based on households' economic expectations. Source: p. 7‑8.

Question 3: Which factor is the least determining for the sense of purpose, all else being equal?

✅ Correct answer: a) The standard of living

📝 Explanation: The report shows that the gap in the sense of meaning between the poorest 20% and the richest 20% is small (0.4 points), while activity, couple life, the presence of children, and the level of education (particularly a doctorate) play a more significant role. Source: p. 8-9.

Question 4: What observation is made regarding meal sharing in France?

✅ Correct answer: c) About 10% of people did not share any meals in a week.

📝 Explanation: The analysis of the first three waves of the 2025 survey shows that about half of the French share almost all of their meals with others, while 10% did not share any meals in the past seven days. Source: p. 9, 22-24.

Question 5: What is the purpose of the dashboard presented at the end of the report?

✅ Correct answer: b) To group the main indicators of well-being to track their evolution.

📝 Explanation: The dashboard brings together the major indicators (life satisfaction, happiness, meaning, future prospects, job satisfaction, etc.) in a synthetic way to allow an overall reading of the evolution of well-being in France. Source: p. 25-27.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What is the purpose of this report for a local health or social actor? (p. 5-7, 25-27)

   This report helps to understand how the subjective well-being of the French is evolving (life satisfaction, future prospects, job satisfaction, loneliness) and provides quantitative indicators to inform a territorial diagnosis, argue for a prevention project, or prioritise target groups in a CLS, a CPTS, or a medico-social structure.

2. What is the main change observed in 2025 regarding work? (p. 6‑7, 18‑21)

   The main change is the significant decline in job satisfaction, which occurs from June 2025 and affects all generations in employment, without an equivalent decline in work-life balance or sense of purpose, suggesting a crisis in organisation and recognition at work.

3. How does the report measure the well-being of the French? (p. 5‑8)

   Well-being is measured through a quarterly survey of 20 questions linked to the Insee economic survey, supplemented by the CAMME survey; the indicators include life satisfaction, happiness, sense of purpose, trust, loneliness, job satisfaction, and future expectations.

4. How is youth particularly affected? (p. 15‑17)

   The report shows a youth under pressure, facing more pessimistic future prospects, inequalities in post-baccalaureate guidance, and high levels of stress (particularly in certain fields), making them a priority audience for psychological support, guidance, and prevention actions.

5. What does the report tell us about loneliness and social interaction? (p. 9, 22‑24)

   Thanks to a new question about the number of shared meals, it shows that while half of the French share almost all their meals, 10% share none, and that sharing meals is strongly associated with better life satisfaction, less depression, and less loneliness, making it a relevant indicator of social connection.

6. How to practically use the report's dashboard? (p. 25‑27)

   Professionals can use the structure of indicators (satisfaction, meaning, prospects, loneliness, job satisfaction) to design local surveys, track the impact of a project, or compare the situation in their area to major national trends, keeping in mind the limitations of sample size and context.

7. Does the report propose solutions or only observations? (pp. 5-7, 10-21)

   The report is primarily descriptive and analytical; it identifies areas of tension (work, youth, future, loneliness) and resources (social connections, meaning), but does not provide action sheets, leaving it to field actors to translate the observations into concrete interventions, ideally relying on other operational guides.

9. Rewriting in Easy-to-Read Language

Analytical summary in Easy-to-Read Language

Title: Understanding Well-Being in France

In 2025, people's well-being in France changes a lot.

People maintain strong connections with their loved ones.

They also retain the idea that their life has meaning.

But job satisfaction is declining sharply for many.

Many people are worried about the future of their children.

Some people feel lonely, especially when they always eat alone.

Title: What the report provides

The report provides simple figures on people's lives and morale.

It shows the links between work, money, housing, and well-being.

It shows how loneliness and shared meals affect morale.

It provides a final table with the main indicators to follow.

Professionals can use these figures for their local projects.

They can better choose the audiences to prioritise for assistance.

Key points in Easy Language

Title: Important points

• In 2025, many people are less satisfied with their work.

• People are more pessimistic about the future of the next generation.

• The feeling that life has meaning remains quite high.

• Sharing meals with others is linked to better well-being.

• A dashboard brings together the key figures on well-being.