Towards a Working Definition of Mental Health

1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert L. Kaplan
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zaida Orth ◽  
Brian van Wyk

Abstract Background: Adolescence have been overlooked in global public health initiatives as this period is generally considered to be the healthiest in an individual’s life course. However, the growth of the global adolescent population along and their changing health profiles have called attention to the diverse health needs of adolescents. However, the increased attention toward adolescent health has accentuated existing gaps as global health reports have emphasised that there is a continued need for valid and reliable health data. In this context, evidence has shown that mental health issues constitute one of the greatest burdens of disease for adolescents. The paucity of research on adolescent mental health and wellbeing may be related to the lack of validated instruments. This integrative review aims to unpack the meaning of mental health wellness among adolescents and its associated constructs by analysing and synthesising peer-reviewed empirical and theoretical research on adolescent mental health. In doing this, we will develop a working definition of adolescent mental health wellness that can be used to develop an instrument aimed at measuring adolescent mental health wellness.Methods: The integrative review is guided by the five steps described by Whittemore and Knafl. A comprehensive search strategy which will include carefully selected terms that correspond to the domains of interest (mental health wellness) will be used to search for relevant literature on electronic databases, grey literature and government or non-governmental organisations (NGO) websites. Studies will be included if they describe and/or define general mental health wellbeing in adolescent populations aged 10-19. The screening and reporting of the review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data from the integrative review will be analysed using narrative framework synthesis for qualitative and quantitative studies Conclusion: This integrative review aims to search for and synthesise current research regarding adolescent mental health wellbeing to identify how wellbeing is being described and conceptualised. We aim to identify gaps and to contribute to a more comprehensive definition of mental health wellness which can aid in the development of an age- and culturally appropriate measure of adolescent mental health wellness


1971 ◽  
Vol 118 (546) ◽  
pp. 499-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. N. Elnagar ◽  
Promila Maitra ◽  
M. N. Rao

The difficulties of organizing mental health services in developing countries are made all the greater by inadequacy of information about the extent of illness and disability. Some beginnings have been made in India, particularly under the sponsorship of the All India Institute of Mental Health, Bangalore. The Mental Health Advisory Committee of the Government of India (1966) suggested a probable prevalence of mental illness of 20 per 1,000 population in general, 18 per mille for semi-rural and 14 per mille for rural areas. These figures are much lower than the 72 per 1,000 suggested by Sethi et al. (1967). Ganguli (1968) estimated a prevalence rate of 140 per 1,000 in industrial workers near Delhi. Incidence rates have been much less studied than prevalences (Lin and Standley, 1962). A WHO Expert Committee on mental health convened in 1960 suggested as a working definition of a case of mental illness:


1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Durham

The definition, given in Section 5 of the new Act, of a “mentally ill person” is examined. It is argued that this “definition” is cumbersome, logically incoherent, and impractical. It is predicted that if given effect it will have very unwelcome consequences. Various sources of inherent misunderstanding and uncertainty are noted. Arguments are presented for allowing severe mental illness itself rather than its consequences to be the ground for involuntary hospitalization in certain circumstances. Various suggestions are proposed for the Section's amendment. These fall into two categories, depending upon alternative assumptions: (1) minor improvements, upon the pessimistic assumption that the main structure and content of the definition will be retained; (2) more radical amendment, involving the abandonment of the entire present structure of the section, and the adoption of a working definition of “mental illness” with clear safeguards against error and abuse. The nature and requirements of such a definition are discussed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Siegel

This article reviews the interdisciplinary field of interpersonal neurobiology and its view of developmental trauma and wellbeing. Issues related to the mind, brain and relationships are discussed along with a working definition of both the mind and mental health.


1979 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
George L. Adams ◽  
Charles C. Cheney ◽  
Michael P. Tristan ◽  
Janice Friese ◽  
Laurence R. Schweitzer

The need to augment the number of primary care physicians throughout the nation has been well documented. Moreover, there is increasing recognition of the importance of mental health in primary care practice. The authors present a working definition of primary care practice, discuss the role of mental health in primary care, and describe an innovative program developed in Houston which integrates primary care mental health training into the education of primary care physicians and mental health professionals.


PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (25) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Farr

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda S Newton ◽  
Sonja March ◽  
Nicole D Gehring ◽  
Arlen K Rowe ◽  
Ashley D Radomski

BACKGROUND Across eHealth intervention studies involving children, adolescents, and their parents, researchers have measured users’ experiences to assist with intervention development, refinement, and evaluation. To date, there are no widely agreed-on definitions or measures of ‘user experience’ to support a standardized approach for evaluation and comparison within or across interventions. OBJECTIVE We conducted a scoping review with subsequent Delphi consultation to (1) identify how user experience is defined and measured in eHealth research studies, (2) characterize the measurement tools used, and (3) establish working definitions for domains of user experience that could be used in future eHealth evaluations. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases for published and gray literature available from January 1, 2005 to April 11, 2019. Studies assessing an eHealth intervention that targeted any health condition and was designed for use by children, adolescents, and their parents were eligible for inclusion. eHealth interventions needed to be web-, computer-, or mobile-based, mediated by the internet with some degree of interactivity. Studies were also required to report the measurement of ‘user experience’ as first-person experiences, involving cognitive and behavioural factors, reported by intervention users. Two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance and appraised the quality of user experience measures using published criteria: ‘well-established’, ‘approaching well-established’, ‘promising’, or ‘not yet established’. We conducted a descriptive analysis of how user experience was defined and measured in each study. Review findings subsequently informed the survey questions used in the Delphi consultations with eHealth researchers and adolescent users for how user experience should be defined and measured. RESULTS Of the 8,634 articles screened for eligibility, 129 and one erratum were included in the review. Thirty eHealth researchers and 27 adolescents participated in the Delphi consultations. Based on the literature and consultations, we proposed working definitions for six main user experience domains: acceptability, satisfaction, credibility, usability, user-reported adherence, and perceived impact. While most studies incorporated a study-specific measure, we identified ten well-established measures to quantify five of the six domains of user experience (all except for self-reported adherence). Our adolescent and researcher participants ranked perceived impact as one of the most important domains of user experience and usability as one of the least important domains. Rankings between adolescents and researchers diverged for other domains. CONCLUSIONS Findings highlight the various ways user experience has been defined and measured across studies and what aspects are most valued by researchers and adolescent users. We propose incorporating the working definitions and available measures of user experience to support consistent evaluation and reporting of outcomes across studies. Future studies can refine the definitions and measurement of user experience, explore how user experience relates to other eHealth outcomes, and inform the design and use of human-centred eHealth interventions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 713-722
Author(s):  
Vincent Boswijk ◽  
Matt Coler

AbstractA commonly used concept in linguistics is salience. Oftentimes it is used without definition, and the meaning of the concept is repeatedly assumed to be self-explanatory. The definitions that are provided may vary greatly from one operationalization of salience to the next. In order to find out whether it is possible to postulate an overarching working definition of linguistic salience that subsumes usage across linguistic subdomains, we review these different operationalizations of linguistic salience. This article focuses on salience in sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, second-language acquisition (SLA), and semantics. In this article, we give an overview of how these fields operationalize salience. Finally, we discuss correlations and contradictions between the different operationalizations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document