心理健康的双因素模型:经验证据的系统回顾》。

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychosocial Intervention Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.5093/pi2024a6
Eunice Magalhães
{"title":"心理健康的双因素模型:经验证据的系统回顾》。","authors":"Eunice Magalhães","doi":"10.5093/pi2024a6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective:</i> Dual-factor models of mental health propose that mental health includes two interrelated yet distinct dimensions - psychopathology and well-being. However, there is no systematization of the evidence following these models. This review aims to address the following research question: what evidence exists using dual-factor models? <i>Method:</i> The current systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines on the following databases: Web-of-science, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, and MEDLINE. The screening process resulted in 85 manuscripts that tested the assumptions of dual-factor models. <i>Results:</i> Evidence revealed psychometric substantiation on the two-dimensionality of the dual-factor model, and 85% of the manuscripts provided evidence related to classifying participants into different mental health groups. Most studies showed that the Complete Mental Health or Positive Mental Health group is the most prevalent status group, and longitudinal evidence suggests that most participants (around 50%-64%) remain in the same group across time. Regarding the factors associated with mental health status groups, studies reviewed in this manuscript focus mainly on school-related outcomes, followed by supportive relationships, sociodemographic characteristics, psychological assets, individual attributes, physical health, and stressful events. <i>Conclusions:</i> This review highlights the importance of considering the two dimensions of mental health when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring mental health. Fostering mental health must go beyond reducing symptoms, and practitioners would be able to include well-being-related interventions in their regular practice to improve individuals' mental health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51641,"journal":{"name":"Psychosocial Intervention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11066810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual-factor Models of Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence.\",\"authors\":\"Eunice Magalhães\",\"doi\":\"10.5093/pi2024a6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Objective:</i> Dual-factor models of mental health propose that mental health includes two interrelated yet distinct dimensions - psychopathology and well-being. However, there is no systematization of the evidence following these models. This review aims to address the following research question: what evidence exists using dual-factor models? <i>Method:</i> The current systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines on the following databases: Web-of-science, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, and MEDLINE. The screening process resulted in 85 manuscripts that tested the assumptions of dual-factor models. <i>Results:</i> Evidence revealed psychometric substantiation on the two-dimensionality of the dual-factor model, and 85% of the manuscripts provided evidence related to classifying participants into different mental health groups. Most studies showed that the Complete Mental Health or Positive Mental Health group is the most prevalent status group, and longitudinal evidence suggests that most participants (around 50%-64%) remain in the same group across time. Regarding the factors associated with mental health status groups, studies reviewed in this manuscript focus mainly on school-related outcomes, followed by supportive relationships, sociodemographic characteristics, psychological assets, individual attributes, physical health, and stressful events. <i>Conclusions:</i> This review highlights the importance of considering the two dimensions of mental health when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring mental health. Fostering mental health must go beyond reducing symptoms, and practitioners would be able to include well-being-related interventions in their regular practice to improve individuals' mental health outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychosocial Intervention\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11066810/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychosocial Intervention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2024a6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychosocial Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2024a6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:心理健康的双因素模型提出,心理健康包括两个相互关联但又截然不同的方面--精神病理学和幸福感。然而,目前还没有根据这些模型对证据进行系统化。本综述旨在解决以下研究问题:使用双因素模型的证据有哪些?研究方法:本次系统性综述采用 PRISMA 准则在以下数据库中进行:Web-of-science、Scopus、Academic Search Complete、APA PsycArticles、APA PsycInfo、Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection、ERIC 和 MEDLINE。经过筛选,共有 85 篇手稿对双因素模型的假设进行了测试。结果:有证据显示,双因素模型的双维性在心理测量学上得到了证实,85%的手稿提供了将参与者划分为不同心理健康群体的相关证据。大多数研究表明,完全心理健康或积极心理健康组是最普遍的状态组,纵向证据表明,大多数参与者(约 50%-64%)在不同时期保持在同一组别。关于与心理健康状况分组相关的因素,本手稿所回顾的研究主要集中在与学校相关的结果上,其次是支持性关系、社会人口特征、心理资产、个人属性、身体健康和压力事件。结论:本综述强调了在概念化、操作化和测量心理健康时考虑心理健康两个维度的重要性。促进心理健康必须超越减轻症状的范畴,从业人员可以在日常工作中纳入与幸福相关的干预措施,以改善个人的心理健康结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dual-factor Models of Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence.

Objective: Dual-factor models of mental health propose that mental health includes two interrelated yet distinct dimensions - psychopathology and well-being. However, there is no systematization of the evidence following these models. This review aims to address the following research question: what evidence exists using dual-factor models? Method: The current systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines on the following databases: Web-of-science, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, and MEDLINE. The screening process resulted in 85 manuscripts that tested the assumptions of dual-factor models. Results: Evidence revealed psychometric substantiation on the two-dimensionality of the dual-factor model, and 85% of the manuscripts provided evidence related to classifying participants into different mental health groups. Most studies showed that the Complete Mental Health or Positive Mental Health group is the most prevalent status group, and longitudinal evidence suggests that most participants (around 50%-64%) remain in the same group across time. Regarding the factors associated with mental health status groups, studies reviewed in this manuscript focus mainly on school-related outcomes, followed by supportive relationships, sociodemographic characteristics, psychological assets, individual attributes, physical health, and stressful events. Conclusions: This review highlights the importance of considering the two dimensions of mental health when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring mental health. Fostering mental health must go beyond reducing symptoms, and practitioners would be able to include well-being-related interventions in their regular practice to improve individuals' mental health outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychosocial Intervention
Psychosocial Intervention PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
10
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychosocial Intervention is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes papers in all areas relevant to psychosocial intervention at the individual, family, social networks, organization, community, and population levels. The Journal emphasizes an evidence-based perspective and welcomes papers reporting original basic and applied research, program evaluation, and intervention results. The journal will also feature integrative reviews, and specialized papers on theoretical advances and methodological issues. Psychosocial Intervention is committed to advance knowledge, and to provide scientific evidence informing psychosocial interventions tackling social and community problems, and promoting social welfare and quality of life. Psychosocial Intervention welcomes contributions from all areas of psychology and allied disciplines, such as sociology, social work, social epidemiology, and public health. Psychosocial Intervention aims to be international in scope, and will publish papers both in Spanish and English.
期刊最新文献
Which Psychosocial Strengths Could Combat the Adolescent Suicide Spectrum? Dissecting the Covitality Model. A Controlled Evaluation of a Psychosocial Outreach Support Program for Adults with Severe Mental Illness. Care Competencies Training Enhances Adolescents' Well-being: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Integrated Motivational Strategies for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators with Substance Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Understanding the Effect of Loneliness on Quality of Life in Older Adults from Longitudinal Approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1