Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Magalhães, E.
Data de Publicação: 2024
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/31404
Resumo: 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.
id RCAP_c1ebb613a885b5d965315638a65a9375
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/31404
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidenceDual-factor modelsMental health groupsSystematic reviewObjective: 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.Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid2024-03-26T15:12:28Z2024-01-01T00:00:00Z20242024-05-03T15:12:58Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/31404eng1132-055910.5093/pi2024a6Magalhães, E.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-07-07T03:09:46Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/31404Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openairemluisa.alvim@gmail.comopendoar:71602024-07-07T03:09:46Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
title Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
spellingShingle Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
Magalhães, E.
Dual-factor models
Mental health groups
Systematic review
title_short Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
title_full Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
title_fullStr Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
title_full_unstemmed Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
title_sort Dual-factor models of mental health: A systematic review of empirical evidence
author Magalhães, E.
author_facet Magalhães, E.
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Magalhães, E.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Dual-factor models
Mental health groups
Systematic review
topic Dual-factor models
Mental health groups
Systematic review
description 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.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-03-26T15:12:28Z
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
2024
2024-05-03T15:12:58Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10071/31404
url http://hdl.handle.net/10071/31404
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1132-0559
10.5093/pi2024a6
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mluisa.alvim@gmail.com
_version_ 1817546408344944640