Community mental health is a decentralized pattern of mental health, mental health care, or other

services for people with mental illnesses. Community-based care is designed to supplement and
decrease the need for more costly inpatient mental health care delivered in hospitals. Community
mental health care may be more accessible and responsive to local needs because it is based in a
variety of community settings rather than aggregating and isolating patients and patient care in
central hospitals. Community mental health assessment, which has grown into a science called
psychiatric epidemiology, is a field of research measuring rates of mental disorder upon which
mental health care systems can be developed and evaluated.

Community mental health centers

In the United States, a modern increase in community mental health care delivery began in the
1960s when President John F. Kennedy signed the 1963 Community Mental Health Centers
(CMHC) Act (Public Law #88-164). Growing community mental health capacities were intended
to complement and mirror trends toward fewer hospital stays and shorter visits for mental illness
(see Deinstitutionalization ). This restructuring of mental health service delivery has occurred in
the context of evolving fiscal responsibilities, however. The goals and practices of community
mental health have been complicated and revised by economic and political changes.
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) initially developed a CMHC program in the
1960s. CMHCs were designed to provide comprehensive services for people with mental illness,
locate these services closer to home, and provide an umbrella of integrated services for a
catchment area of 125,000-250,000 people. CMHCs were designed to provide prevention, early
treatment, and continuity of care in communities, promoting social integration of people with
mental health needs.

Competing public interests

At the outset, CMHCs were providing outpatient care to people with less severe, episodic, or
acute mental health problems. In the 1980s, more people with serious mental illness began using
CMHCs, due in part to deinstitutionalization, and following the redirection and capping of
federal funds for local mental health care. With growing awareness of the homeless mentally ill,
state-funded CMHCs faced new challenges, and their work became fragmented according to
catchment areas of responsibility, leaving some urban centers overburdened, while others
maintained locally funded operations, limiting responsibility for their area only.
The growth of local community mental health centers was an example of competing
governmental interests and authorities. Growing numbers of CMHCs were mandated federally
and to be funded by local communities, bypassing state control. This growth in outpatient
capacity was later used to complement decreases in inpatient hospital care, or
deinstitutionalization, which reduced the costs of diminishing and state-funded mental hospitals.

Policies to improve public mental health care

Community mental health centers were the first of several programmatic attempts to improve
mental health care in the latter part of the twentieth century. A second was when the federal
government recommended Community Support Programs (CSPs) in 1977-78 in response to
problems associated with deinstitutionalization. CSPs focused on providing direct care and
rehabilitation for the chronically mentally ill. However, federal support for mental health care
and CMHCs in particular was reduced in 1980-81, with the repeal of the Mental Health Systems
Act and the federal budgeting actions that cut funding and provided it through block grants to
states.
A third initiative has been to expand the national capacity for children's mental health care under
the Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP), beginning in the 1980s. Principles
for this system of care included a continuum of services, including mental health. The expansion
of mental health classification systems and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders has helped identify and treat a growing number of children and youth. A fourth
initiative was a joint effort by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the department of
Housing and Urban Development. Their Program on Chronic Mental Illness (PCMI) promoted
the integration of regional mental health authorities in nine cities. Coordinated local mental
health systems run by local mental health authorities remain an important goal of mental health
policy.
Finally, many private and public health systems have moved towards managed mental health
care, which has become also known as behavioral health care. This form of cost containment is a
constellation of organizational reforms, financing systems, and regulatory techniques. Managed
care expanded throughout health care in the 1990s, providing new challenges to mental health
care policy. While federal health policy and medical assistance provide reimbursement for
mental health care and for people with mental illness, the regulation of these systems has grown
increasingly complex.
While the ideals of community mental health were supplemented with new ideals in the years
following the CMHC Act, they were not forgotten. Thanks to the work of NIMH, Medicare and
Medicaid legislation (1965), and Supplemental Security Income legislation (1972), communities
were able to provide mental health care for growing populations in need. National
epidemiological studies in the 1980s and 1990s reinforced the large-scale need for mental health
care, as CMHCs and subsequent organizational forms provided services to the nation.
Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Community-mentalhealth.html#ixzz38krnfp6l

community mental health,

a treatment philosophy based on the social model of psychiatric care that advocates that a
comprehensive range of mental health services be readily accessible to all members of the
community.
Mental health (or behavioral health) is a level of psychological well-being, or an absence of a
mental disorder;[1] it is the "psychological state of someone who is functioning at a satisfactory
level of emotional and behavioral adjustment".[2] From the perspective of positive psychology or
holism, mental health may include an individual's ability to enjoy life, and create a balance
between life activities and efforts to achieve psychological resilience.[1] According to World
Health Organization (WHO) mental health includes "subjective well-being, perceived selfefficacy, autonomy, competence, intergenerational dependence, and self-actualization of ones
intellectual and emotional potential, among others."[3] WHO further states that the well-being of
an individual is encompassed in the realization of their abilities, coping with normal stresses of
life, productive work and contribution to their community.[4] However, cultural differences,
subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how "mental health" is
defined.[3] Behavioral health is the preferred term to mental health.[citation needed]
A person struggling with his or her behavioral health may face stress, depression, anxiety,
relationship problems, grief, addiction, ADHD or learning disabilities, mood disorders, or other
psychological concerns.[5][6] Counselors, therapists, life coaches, psychologists, nurse
practitioners or physicians can help manage behavioral health concerns with treatments such as
therapy, counseling, or medication. The new field of global mental health is "the area of study,
research and practice that places a priority on improving mental health and achieving equity in
mental health for all people worldwide".[7]
In the mid-15th century, William Sweetzer was the first to clearly define the term "mental
hygiene" which can be seen as the precursor to contemporary approaches to work on promoting
positive mental health.[8] Isaac Ray, one of the thirteen founders of the American Psychiatric
Association, further defined mental hygiene as an art to preserve the mind against incidents and
influences which would inhibit or destroy its energy, quality or development.[8]
Dorothea Dix (18021887) was an important figure in the development of "mental hygiene"
movement. Dix was a school teacher who endeavored throughout her life to help those suffering
from mental illness, and to bring to light the deplorable conditions into which they were put.[9]
This was known as the "mental hygiene movement".[9] Before this movement, it was not
uncommon that people affected by mental illness in the 19th century would be considerably
neglected, often left alone in deplorable conditions, barely even having sufficient clothing.[9]

Dix's efforts were so great that there was a rise in the number of patients in mental health
facilities, which sadly resulted in these patients receiving less attention and care, as these
institutions were largely understaffed.[9]
At the beginning of the 20th century, Clifford Beers founded the National Committee for Mental
Hygiene and opened the first outpatient mental health clinic in the United States of America.[8][10]
The mental hygiene movement, related to the social hygiene movement, had at times been
associated with advocating eugenics and sterilisation of those considered too mentally deficient
to be assisted into productive work and contented family life.[11][12]
After year 1945, references to mental hygiene were gradually replaced by the term 'mental
health'.[13]

Versus behavioral health

While most people are familiar with the term, mental health, the new term "behavioral health"
is a more all-encompassing term. Where mental health covers many of the same issues as
behavioral health, it only refers to the biological component of this aspect of wellness. The term,
behavioral health encompasses all contributions to mental wellness including substances use,
behavior, habits, and other external forces.[14]

Significance
Evidence from the World Health Organization suggests that nearly half of the world's population
are affected by mental illness with an impact on their self-esteem, relationships and ability to
function in everyday life.[15] An individual's emotional health can also impact physical health and
poor mental health can lead to problems such as substance abuse.[16]
Maintaining good mental health is crucial to living a long and healthy life. Good mental health
can enhance one's life, while poor mental health can prevent someone from living an enriching
life. According to Richards, Campania, & Muse-Burke (2010) "There is growing evidence that is
showing emotional abilities are associated with prosocial behaviors such as stress management
and physical health" (2010). It was also concluded in their research that people who lack
emotional expression are inclined to anti-social behaviors. These behaviors are a direct reflection
of their mental health. Self-destructive acts may take place to suppress emotions. Some of these
acts include drug and alcohol abuse, physical fights or vandalism.[17]

Perspectives
Mental well-being

Mental health can be seen as an unstable continuum, where an individual's mental health may
have many different possible values.[18] Mental wellness is generally viewed as a positive

attribute, such that a person can reach enhanced levels of mental health, even if the person does
not have any diagnosed mental health condition. This definition of mental health highlights
emotional well-being, the capacity to live a full and creative life, and the flexibility to deal with
life's inevitable challenges. Some discussions are formulated in terms of contentment or
happiness.[19] Many therapeutic systems and self-help books offer methods and philosophies
espousing strategies and techniques vaunted as effective for further improving the mental
wellness of otherwise healthy people. Positive psychology is increasingly prominent in mental
health.
A holistic model of mental health generally includes concepts based upon anthropological,
educational, psychological, religious and sociological perspectives, as well as theoretical
perspectives from personality, social, clinical, health and developmental psychology.[20][21]
An example of a wellness model includes one developed by Myers, Sweeney and Witmer. It
includes five life tasksessence or spirituality, work and leisure, friendship, love and selfdirectionand twelve sub taskssense of worth, sense of control, realistic beliefs, emotional
awareness and coping, problem solving and creativity, sense of humor, nutrition, exercise, self
care, stress management, gender identity, and cultural identitywhich are identified as
characteristics of healthy functioning and a major component of wellness. The components
provide a means of responding to the circumstances of life in a manner that promotes healthy
functioning. The population of the USA in its majority is considered to be mostly uneducated on
the subjects of mental health .[22] Another model is psychological well-being.
Prevention

Mental health can also be defined as an absence of a mental disorder. Focus is increasing on
preventing mental disorders. Prevention is beginning to appear in mental health strategies,
including the 2004 WHO report "Prevention of Mental Disorders", the 2008 EU "Pact for Mental
Health" and the 2011 US National Prevention Strategy.[23][24] Prevention of a disorder at a young
age may significantly decrease the chances that a child will suffer from a disorder later in life.
[citation needed]

Cultural and religious considerations

Mental health is a socially constructed and socially defined concept; that is, different societies,
groups, cultures, institutions and professions have very different ways of conceptualizing its
nature and causes, determining what is mentally healthy, and deciding what interventions, if any,
are appropriate.[25] Thus, different professionals will have different cultural, class, political and
religious backgrounds, which will impact the methodology applied during treatment.

Research has shown that there is stigma attached to mental illness.[26] In the United Kingdom, the
Royal College of Psychiatrists organized the campaign Changing Minds (19982003) to help
reduce stigma.[27]
Many mental health professionals are beginning to, or already understand, the importance of
competency in religious diversity and spirituality. The American Psychological Association
explicitly states that religion must be respected. Education in spiritual and religious matters is
also required by the American Psychiatric Association.[28]

Emotional issues around the world

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the
United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2013)

Emotional mental disorders are a leading cause of disabilities worldwide. Investigating the
degree and severity of untreated emotional mental disorders throughout the world is a top
priority of the World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative, which was created in 1998 by the
World Health Organization (WHO).[29] "Neuropsychiatric disorders are the leading causes of
disability worldwide, accounting for 37% of all healthy life years lost through disease.These
disorders are most destructive to low and middle-income countries due to their inability to
provide their citizens with proper aid. Despite modern treatment and rehabilitation for emotional
mental health disorders, "even economically advantaged societies have competing priorities and
budgetary constraints".
The World Mental Health survey initiative has suggested a plan for countries to redesign their
mental health care systems to best allocate resources. "A first step is documentation of services
being used and the extent and nature of unmet needs for treatment. A second step could be to do
a cross-national comparison of service use and unmet needs in countries with different mental
health care systems. Such comparisons can help to uncover optimum financing, national policies,
and delivery systems for mental health care."
Knowledge of how to provide effective emotional mental health care has become imperative
worldwide. Unfortunately, most countries have insufficient data to guide decisions, absent or
competing visions for resources, and near constant pressures to cut insurance and entitlements.
WMH surveys were done in Africa (Nigeria, South Africa), the Americas (Colombia, Mexico,
U.S.A), Asia and the Pacific (Japan, New Zealand, Beijing and Shanghai in the Peoples Republic
of China), Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Ukraine), and the
middle east (Israel, Lebanon). Countries were classified with World Bank criteria as low-income
(Nigeria), lower middle-income (China, Colombia, South Africa, Ukraine), higher middleincome (Lebanon, Mexico), and high-income.

The coordinated surveys on emotional mental health disorders, their severity, and treatments
were implemented in the aforementioned countries. These surveys assessed the frequency, types,
and adequacy of mental health service use in 17 countries in which WMH surveys are complete.
The WMH also examined unmet needs for treatment in strata defined by the seriousness of
mental disorders. Their research showed that "the number of respondents using any 12-month
mental health service was generally lower in developing than in developed countries, and the
proportion receiving services tended to correspond to countries' percentages of gross domestic
product spent on health care". "High levels of unmet need worldwide are not surprising, since
WHO Project ATLAS' findings of much lower mental health expenditures than was suggested by
the magnitude of burdens from mental illnesses. Generally, unmet needs in low-income and
middle-income countries might be attributable to these nations spending reduced amounts
(usually <1%) of already diminished health budgets on mental health care, and they rely heavily
on out-of-pocket spending by citizens who are ill equipped for it".
The concept of mental health, given its polysemic nature and its imprecise borders, benefits from
a historical perspective to be better understood. What today is broadly understood by mental
health can have its origins tracked back to developments in public health, in clinical psychiatry
and in other branches of knowledge.
Although references to mental health as a state can be found in the English language well before
the 20th century, technical references to mental health as a field or discipline are not found
before 1946. During that year, the International Health Conference, held in New York, decided to
establish the World Health Organization (WHO) and a Mental Health Association was founded
in London. Before that date, found are references to the corresponding concept of mental
hygiene, which first appeared in the English literature in 1843, in a book entitled Mental
hygiene or an examination of the intellect and passions designed to illustrate their influence on
health and duration of life 1. Moreover, in 1849, healthy mental and physical development of
the citizen had already been included as the first objective of public health in a draft law
submitted to the Berlin Society of Physicians and Surgeons 2.
In 1948, the WHO was created and in the same year the first International Congress on Mental
Health took place in London. At the second session of the WHOs Expert Committee on Mental
Health (September 11-16, 1950), mental health and mental hygiene were defined as follows
3: Mental hygiene refers to all the activities and techniques which encourage and maintain
mental health. Mental health is a condition, subject to fluctuations due to biological and social
factors, which enables the individual to achieve a satisfactory synthesis of his own potentially
conflicting, instinctive drives; to form and maintain harmonious relations with others; and to
participate in constructive changes in his social and physical environment.
However, a clear and widely accepted definition of mental health as a discipline was (and is) still
missing. Significantly, the Dorlands Medical Dictionary does not carry an entry on mental

health, whereas the Campbells Dictionary of Psychiatry gives it two meanings: first, as a
synonym of mental hygiene and second, as a state of psychological wellbeing. The Oxford
English Dictionary defines mental hygiene as a set of measures to preserve mental health, and
later refers to mental health as a state. These lexicographic concepts nonetheless, more and more
mental health is employed in the sense of a discipline (e.g., sections/divisions in health ministries
or secretaries, or departments in universities), with an almost perfect replacement of mental
hygiene.
In addition, given this polysemic nature of mental health, its delimitation in relation to psychiatry
(understood as the medical specialty concerned with the study, prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of mental disorders or diseases) is not always clear. There is a more or less widespread
effort to set mental health at least aside from psychiatry and at most as an overarching concept
with encompasses psychiatry.
Go to:

THE ORIGINS OF MENTAL HEALTH

The mental hygiene movement

The origin of the mental hygiene movement can be attributed to the work of Clifford Beers in the
USA. In 1908 he published A mind that found itself 4, a book based on his personal experience
of admissions to three mental hospitals. The book had a great repercussion and in the same year a
Mental Hygiene Society was established in Connecticut. The term mental hygiene had been
suggested to Beers by Adolf Meyer 5 and enjoyed a quick popularity thanks to the creation in
1909 of the National Commission of Mental Hygiene. From 1919 onwards, the
internationalization of activities of this Commission led to the establishment of some national
associations concerned with mental hygiene: in France 6 and South Africa 7 in 1920, in Italy 8
and Hungary 9 in 1924. From these national associations the International Committee on Mental
Hygiene was created and later superseded by the World Federation of Mental Health.
The mental hygiene movement, in its origins and reflecting Beers experience in mental
hospitals, was primarily and basically concerned with the improvement of the care of people
with mental disorders. In Beers own words: When the National Committee was organized, in
1909, its chief concern was to humanize the care of the insane: to eradicate the abuses, brutalities
and neglect from which the mentally sick have traditionally suffered. 4.
It was at a later stage that the Committee enlarged its program to include the milder forms of
mental disability and a greater concern with preventive work. The rationale behind this shift
was the belief that mental disorders frequently have their beginnings in childhood and youth
and that preventive measures are most effective in early life, and that environmental conditions
and modes of living produce mental ill health.

By 1937, the US National Committee for Mental Hygiene stated that it sought to achieve its
purposes by: a) promoting early diagnosis and treatment; b) developing adequate hospitalization;
c) stimulating research; d) securing public understanding and support of psychiatric and mental
hygiene activities; e) instructing individuals and groups in the personal application of mental
hygiene principles; and f) cooperating with governmental and private agencies whose work
touches at any point the field of mental hygiene.
Thus, the mental hygiene movement had initially a para-psychiatric nature, directing its efforts
towards the improvement of psychiatric care. The inclusion of preventive activities among its
interests did not distinguish it from psychiatry: the movement aimed at maximizing what was
accepted and proposed by the most advanced psychiatrists of the epoch in the USA, most of
whom followed a psychoanalytical orientation.
According to the group which launched it, the mental hygiene movement visualized, not a
single patient, but a whole community; and it considered each member of that community as an
individual whose mental and emotional status was determined by definite causative factors and
whose compelling need was for prevention rather than cure. The Mental Hygiene Movement,
then, bears the same relation to psychiatry that the public-health movement, of which it forms a
part, bears to medicine in general. It is an organized community response to a recognized
community need. 4. On the other hand, it was also stated that: At the present time both
psychiatrists and mental hygienists are more than ever conscious that their objectives are in fact
identical and that each group needs the other for the fulfilment of their common task. 4.
The World Health Organization

From its very beginning, the WHO has always had an administrative section specially dedicated
to mental health, as an answer to requests from its Member States. The first Report of the WHOs
Director General 10, in its English version, refers to an administrative section called Mental
Health. However, the French version of the same report calls it Hygine Mentale. Well until
the 1960s we find hygine as the French translation of health in some WHO publications and in
some instances we find also mental hygiene used interchangeably with mental health in the
English version of some documents. The volume no. 9 of the WHOs series Public Health Papers
was published in 1961 in English with the title Teaching of Psychiatry and Mental Health 11, in
1962 in French with the title Lenseignement de la Psychiatrie et de lHygine Mentale 12 and in
1963 in Spanish with the title Enseanza de la Psiquiatria y de la Salud Mental 13.
In the preamble to the WHO Constitutions, it was stated that health is a state of complete
physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity 14, a
now widely quoted definition. This definition is clearly a holistic one, intended to overcome the
old dichotomies of body vs. mind and physical vs. psychic. It is also a pragmatic one, insofar as

it incorporates into medicine a social dimension, gradually developed in Europe during the 19th
century.
It should be noted that mental, in WHOs definition of health (as well as physical and social)
refers to dimensions of a state and not to a specific domain or discipline. Therefore, according to
this concept, it is incongruous to refer to physical health, mental health or social health. Should
one wish to specify a particular dimension, the most appropriate noun to designate it should be
wellbeing and not health (e.g., mental wellbeing or social wellbeing). This negligent use of the
word health seems to have been also in operation when mental hygiene (a social movement, or a
domain of activity) was replaced by mental health (originally intended to designate a state and
later transformed in a particular domain or field of activity).
The International Congress of Mental Health

The First International Congress of Mental Health was organized in London by the British
National Association for Mental Hygiene from 16 to 21 August, 1948. Starting as an
International Conference on Mental Hygiene, it ended with a series of recommendations on
mental health. Throughout the proceedings of the conference, hygiene and health, qualifying
mental, are used interchangeably, sometimes in the same paragraph, without any clear conceptual
distinction. However, in the 17 pages of the recommendations of the conference, hygiene is very
sparingly used. At the end of the congress, the International Committee on Mental Hygiene was
superseded by the World Federation for Mental Health.
In addition to the wording employed in the proceedings of that congress, gradually replacing
hygiene by health, some of its recommendations were also influential at other levels. An example
is recommendation 6 to the WHO that as soon as practicable, an advisory expert committee be
established, composed of professional personnel in the field of mental health and human
relations.
The conference had been convened under the theme Mental Health and World Citizenship.
From a conceptual point of view, nevertheless, and perhaps reflecting an immediately post-war
situation, discussions over world citizenship prevailed over those on mental health. Only one
concept of mental health was put forward, by J.C. Flugel, Chairman of the Conferences
Programme Committee: Mental health is regarded as a condition which permits the optimal
development, physical, intellectual and emotional, of the individual, so far as this is compatible
with that of other individuals. 15. Echoing concerns about the absence, or rather limited number
of, participants from places such as Far East, South America and the Soviet Union, the hope was
expressed that mental health as understood in Western countries [is not] necessarily at variance
with the sense in which it is understood in other countries 15.
In a more detailed way, some delegates elaborated on what was summarized as the four levels
of mental health work: custodial, therapeutic, preventive and positive 15. It is not difficult to see

a considerable overlapping between this proposal and the one already implemented by the mental
hygiene movement.
At the closing session, O.L. Forel, Lecturer in Psychiatry at the University of Geneva, answering
to criticisms that mental hygiene, as understood in that conference, went beyond the medical and
scientific framework, made a clearly political (in Platos sense) statement by saying that: I dare
hope to be your interpreter in expressing our pride that so many scientists came here not at all to
develop their respective sciences, but to have them at mens service 15.
Reading through the proceedings of this congress gives one a feeling of the tensions between a
pragmatic approach, developed by the mental hygiene movement (basically defended by
delegates from the USA), and a more politically-oriented approach, proposed by other
participants, perhaps translating the experiences of some delegates from European countries,
which had severely suffered from the war. In the end this latter approach prevailed, with the
transformation of the mental hygiene movement into the mental health movement. Perhaps as a
reflection of this basically political movement, in 1949 the National Institute of Mental Health
started its activities in the USA.
Go to:

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
After half a century of the mental health, and almost a century of the mental hygiene movements,
some developments can be perceived. On a more general level, the WHOs very concept of
health has been recently questioned; formulated half a century ago, it is no longer felt by some as
much appropriate to the current situation 16,17.
On the whole, mental health continues to be used both to designate a state, a dimension of health
an essential element in the definition of health and to refer to the movement derived from the
mental hygiene movement, corresponding to the application of psychiatry to groups,
communities and societies, rather than on an individual basis, as is the case with clinical
psychiatry. However, mental health is, quite unfortunately, still viewed by many as a discipline,
either as a synonym of psychiatry, or as one of its complementary fields.
A recent trend has been the addition of the qualifier public to either mental health or to
psychiatry, as it can be seen in a WHO document entitled Public mental health 18, or in a journal
named Psiquiatra Pblica, published in Spain since 1989. This is very much in line with the
concept of mental health as a movement rather than a discipline.
In 2001, the WHO dedicated its annual report (The World Health Report - Mental health: new
knowledge, new hope) to mental health 19. In that same year, the theme of the World Health Day
was Stop Exclusion Dare to Care, a quite clear political statement, that I am sure would have
immensely pleased Clifford Beers.

In the message from the WHO Director-General that opens that report, Gro H. Brundtland
summarizes the three main knowledge areas covered by the document: a) effectiveness of
prevention and treatment, b) service planning and provision, and c) policies to break down
stigma and discrimination and adequate funds for prevention and treatment. If one allows for the
semantic variations between the beginnings of the 20th and the 21st centuries, the same concerns
of the origins of the mental hygiene movement, discussed earlier on, can be found in the mental
health content of the World Health Report. Perhaps the biggest difference between these two
political platforms is the emphasis on the improvement of hospital care in the former (the only
form of treatment available by then), and the contemporary emphasis on distancing mental health
from psychiatric hospitals and placing it in the community.
However, one must admit that, unfortunately, what was high in Beers agenda in 1909, namely,
an improvement in the standards of mental health care and an eradication of the abuses to which
people with mental disorders are usually subject, is still a major concern of the most progressive
and advanced agenda of people interested in the promotion of mental health around the world.
Go to:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Abstract
As comprehensive community mental health centers begin to proliferate nationwide under the
impetus of the Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963, it is imperative that
the roles and functions of its staff members be redefined to meet the new demands that will be
placed upon them by the community. These include participation in new programs concerned
with welfare, education, rehabilitation, gerontology, and positive aspects of mental health and
mental retardation. Several new roles for clinical psychologists in a community mental health
setting are suggested; also a distinction is made between community mental health center
psychologists and community psychologists. The roles that are cited are applicable to all mental
health professionals and others who offer mental health services to the community.
A version of this paper was presented at the American Psychological Association
Meeting in New York City, September, 1966.
Close
Page 1

Page 2

ental Health Promotion in Public Health: Perspectives and

Strategies From Positive Psychology
Rosemarie Kobau, MPH, MAPP,

Martin E.P. Seligman, PhD, Christopher

Peterson, PhD, Ed Diener, PhD, Matthew M. Zack, MD, MPH, Daniel Chapman, PhD,
and William Thompson, PhD
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:

Abstract
Positive psychology is the study of what is right about peopletheir positive attributes,
psychological assets, and strengths. Its aim is to understand and foster the factors that allow
individuals, communities, and societies to thrive.
Cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal research demonstrates that positive emotions are
associated with numerous benefits related to health, work, family, and economic status. Growing
biomedical research supports the view that positive emotions are not merely the opposite of
negative emotions but may be independent dimensions of mental affect.
The asset-based paradigms of positive psychology offer new approaches for bolstering
psychological resilience and promoting mental health. Ultimately, greater synergy between
positive psychology and public health might help promote mental health in innovative ways.
Mental health promotion seeks to foster individual competencies, resources, and psychological
strengths, and to strengthen community assets to prevent mental disorder and enhance well-being
and quality of life for people and communities.14 Positive psychology is the study of such
competencies and resources, or what is right about peopletheir positive attributes,
psychological assets, and strengths.5 Its mission is to understand and foster the factors that allow
individuals, communities, and societies to thrive.5,6 It complements theories and models of
individual, community, and organizational deficits with theories and models of assets.7 Positive
psychology offers new approaches for bolstering psychological resilience and for promoting
mental health, and thus may enhance efforts of health promotion generally and of mental health
promotion specifically.14,710
Health promotion strategies, in general, include implementing health-enhancing public policy
(employment opportunities, antidiscriminatory laws), creating supportive environments
(parenting interventions), strengthening community action (participatory research, media
campaigns), developing personal skills (resilience), and reorienting health services (postpartum
depression screening) to enhance health.1,2,1113 Public health has focused its efforts on these
health determinants primarily as they relate to preventing physical illness, injury, and disability,
resulting in increased longevity.14,15 Similarly, clinical psychiatry and psychology have been
successful in identifying, classifying, and treating mental illness and disorder, resulting in better
quality of life for many. However, just as the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion13 shifted
greater attention in public health from disease prevention to health promotion, positive
psychology shifts attention from pathology and dysfunction to positive emotions and optimal
functioning. Underlying both of these shifts are the fundamental views that health is more than
the absence of illness and that fostering individual and social resources can lead people,
organizations, and communities to thrive.

In public health, this shift has also become evident in the field of mental health promotion, seen
as an integral part of health promotion practice.13,12,16 Common to both mental health promotion
and positive psychology is a focus on positive mental health, an empowering resource, broadly
inclusive of psychological assets and skills essential to human fulfillment and well-being.1,3,4
Activities and programs that foster positive mental health also help to prevent mental illness,
highlighting the benefits of mental health promotion to overall population health.2 Assessment of
positive mental health and related outcomes such as well-being can help in supporting and
evaluating health promotion and public health wellness initiatives.17 Thus, positive psychology
deserves a place in health promotion, and health promotion theory and methods can enhance
positive psychology research and practice to improve population mental health.7,8,1719
Whereas discourse on human fulfillment is rooted in ancient Western and Eastern philosophy, as
well as in more recent disciplines of human development and humanistic and educational
psychology, positive psychology applies a common language and an empirical approach to the
study of 4 areas: (1) positive emotions (happiness, gratitude, fulfillment), (2) positive individual
traits (optimism, resiliency, character strengths), (3) positive relationships among groups, and (4)
enabling institutions (schools, worksites) that foster positive outcomes.5,18,2024 This contrasts with
postWorld War II psychology, which concentrated on repairing damage using the prevailing
disease model of human functioning (i.e., mental ill health), while largely ignoring psychological
assets (e.g., courage, kindness) and positive aspects of behavior (e.g., responsibility, compassion)
that could also assist in therapy.25 The focus on mental ill healthits causes, symptoms, and
consequencesresulted in stigma associated with these factors, euphemistic use of the term
mental health to describe treatment and support services for people with mental illness, and
vague language, especially among the public, about what mental health means.1
Positive psychology does not claim that mainstream psychology is negative or less important
because it focuses on pathology and mental illness. Its aim is not to deny the distressing or
unpleasant aspects of life; the value of negative experiences on human development, coping, and
creativity; or the critical need to ameliorate distress.23,26 Despite what its critics say, positive
psychology seeks to provide a more complete scientific understanding of the human experience
including positive and negative experiencesto better integrate and complement existing
knowledge about mental illness with knowledge about positive mental health.23,24,27,28 Researchers
have addressed these critics' objections, which are primarily concerned with adaptation, goals,
temperament, heritability, forecasting, recall biases, and accurately measuring or intervening on
well-being.2936 Research from multiple disciplines suggests that positive mental health and wellbeing can be measured relatively accurately and that appropriately targeted interventions can
affect well-being.4,24,30,35,36 However, more research in positive psychology that generalizes to the
broad population is warranted. Given the benefits of positive emotions, positive psychology
parallels efforts in mental health promotion to advance the value of positive mental health in
individuals and society.14 We present a brief overview on the benefits of positive emotions, the

recognition and impact of positive individual traits for mental health promotion, and the
influence of enabling social-environmental factors on positive mental health.
Go to:

POSITIVE EMOTIONS
Many people know about the benefits of negative emotions such as fear, disgust, and anger in
securing our personal safety and survival (e.g., fight or flight), and the harms of increased stress
levels, narrowed responses for action, and withdrawal associated with negative emotions. Fewer
know that positive emotions (e.g., joy, interest, contentment) quell autonomic arousal, signal
approach and safety, and prompt individuals to engage with their physical and social
environments by exploring new objects, people, or situations (for reviews, see Fredrickson6,37,38
and Tugade et al.39). Although sometimes confused with related affective states such as shortterm sensory pleasure (e.g., satiety, warmth) and longer-lasting positive moods, positive
emotions are typically brief and result from personally meaningful circumstances (e.g., joy from
a social encounter).
Broaden and Build

The Broaden and Build theory of positive emotions proposes that positive emotions broaden
people's attention, expand cognition (e.g., curiosity, creativity) and behaviors (e.g., exploration,
play), and consequently foster physical, intellectual, and social resources (e.g., intelligence,
mastery, social competence) for optimal functioning.6,37,38 So, whereas negative emotions are
adaptive in the short term, positive emotions may be adaptive in the longer term by building
personal resources that function as psychological reserves for continued growth.6,38,39
Regulating Negative Emotions

Moreover, positive emotions can more quickly quell or undo the adverse effects of negative
experiences by reducing stressful reactions (e.g., increased blood pressure) and returning the
body to a balanced state.6,40,41 For example, in previous studies, individuals in whom positive
emotions such as contentment and mild joy were prompted immediately after a stressful situation
had faster cardiovascular recovery (e.g., reduced heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction, and
blood pressure) than did those in a control group.6,40 According to the Broaden and Build theory,
resilient people experience positive emotions more frequently and recover more quickly from
specific life stressors.6,38,39
Biological Markers of Positive Emotions

Positive emotions have numerous health, job, family, and economic benefits.31,4244 In numerous
cross-sectional studies, positive emotions and positive evaluations of life are associated with
decreased risk of disease, illness, and injury; healthier behaviors; better immune functioning;
speedier recovery; and increased longevity.31,40,4346 Longitudinal and experimental studies show

that positive emotions precede many successful outcomes related to work, social relationships,
and physical health.44 Growing biomedical and related research supports the view that positive
emotions are not merely the opposite of negative emotions but independent dimensions of mental
affect.47,48 Positive emotions and negative emotions appear to have different determinants,
consequences, and correlates, but differentiating these requires more study.44,49,50
Positive emotions are partially heritable (estimates of heritability range from 0.36 to 0.81),
suggesting a genetically determined set point for emotions such as happiness and sadness.5155
The expression of genetic effects, however, often results from environmental stimuli; social
context matters because it can affect the opportunity for, and the frequency of, expressing
positive emotions.30,53 (The frequency of positive emotions predicts well-being better than does
their intensity.44) Furthermore, individuals' circumstances and social contexts are amenable to
intervention by public health, mental health, and positive psychology practitioners. Several
interventions described in this essay and elsewhere have succeeded in boosting positive emotions
and minimizing negative affect and depression over time.36,53,56
This growing literature demonstrates that positive emotions are important psychological
resources to be nurtured, rather than only enjoyed as brief, elusive outcomes.4,6,31,37,38,44 Positive
psychology interventions (e.g., those that promote resiliency, optimism, or gratitude) may
enhance the value of public health interventions based on effective behavioral science theories
(e.g., Stages of Change)57 and methodologies (e.g., motivational interviewing) in improving
health outcomes. Framing individual and population health communication messages around
positive experiences and emotions may foster behavior change better than using messages based
on fear.8 For example, Kaiser Permanente's Thrive campaign links its brand and its health
services with the theme of living life fully and happily, and may be morale boosting for some.58,59
Go to:

POSITIVE INDIVIDUAL TRAITS

Positive individual traits include a number of positive dispositions present in individuals to
different degrees, such as creativity, bravery, kindness, perseverance, and optimism, which, when
cultivated, can increase resiliency, buffer against psychological disorder and other adversities,
and promote mental health.18 Several methods exist to help individuals improve their resiliency
and identify their positive dispositions.
Resiliency and Optimism

Resiliency is the process of positive adaptation in the context of adversity or risk.1,4,60 Resiliency
helps people to cope with life's challenges and confers a sense of mastery over one's life.1,4
Promotion of resiliency can occur within persons (e.g., coping, optimism), among persons (social
support), and across social levels (public health or educational systems).60 Studies of resiliency
focus on positive adaptation and achievement and stress the importance of promoting

competence (e.g., autonomy, goal-directed behavior) through interventions.4,61 Substantial public

health efforts are designed to promote resiliency among persons and across social levels. For
example, prevention programs that safeguard against illness and injury might promote resiliency
directly (e.g., vaccinations, nutritional fortification of foods) or indirectly (e.g., after-school
programs).1 The US Administration on Aging supports congregate meal programs through its
network of Area Agencies on Aging, not only to provide meals to older adults but also to
promote social interaction and social support that may confer greater psychological resiliency.62
Parenting interventions and preschool interventions are effective in boosting resiliency in
mothers and children.1,2,4
Positive psychology offers several approaches for improving individual resiliency that may be
relevant for public health interventions aimed at schools, worksites, health care settings, and
Area Agencies on Aging. For example, individuals can change their explanatory stylethat is,
how they interpret day-to-day events and their interactions with others.4,6365 Specifically, they
can learn skills for more optimistic ways of thinking and reacting to improve their resiliency.4,63
Besides certain personality characteristics (e.g., dispositional optimism) and the physical and
social environment, explanatory style can predict depression and other negative physical health
outcomes.66,67 Skills based on learned optimismsuch as challenging beliefs, avoiding thinking
traps, calming and focusing, and putting things in perspectivecan improve psychological
resiliency in individuals. These skills closely resemble cognitive symptom management,
effectively used in interventions such as the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program.68
However, expanding the use of skills like learned optimism to the broad population holds
promise for promoting mental health.63,64,69,70
The Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) is a group intervention delivered to children aged 8 to 15
years after school that teaches resiliency skills based on learned optimism. The PRP has been
effectively implemented in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, China, and Portugal,
providing evidence of its effectiveness in diverse cultural settings.2,70,71 Students learn to adopt
more optimistic explanatory styles by detecting inaccurate thoughts, evaluating the accuracy of
those thoughts, and challenging negative beliefs by considering alternative interpretations.70,71
Students also learn how to negotiate, make decisions, and relax. In 21 studies (most of which
used randomized controlled designs) that comprised about 3000 children, the PRP prevented
disruptive behaviors for up to 36 months and depression and anxiety symptoms for up to 2 years,
especially in students with more severe symptoms.7073 Thus, a mental health promotion
intervention like the PRP may reduce the likelihood of onset of mental illness in children, but it
requires more study.74 The PRP works equally well among boys and girls and for children of
various racial/ethnic backgrounds.70,74 Similar school-based interventions have demonstrated
improvements in empathy, cooperation, assertiveness, self-control, coping skills, resilience, and
other social competencies aligned with positive mental health outcomes.2,70

The US Army is applying resiliency training modeled after the PRP through its Comprehensive
Soldier Fitness Program75 to support the optimal mental and physical health of soldiers. As of
October 1, 2009, the Army has supported resiliency training for its entire staff. The
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program focuses on 5 dimensions of functioning: physical,
emotional, spiritual, family, and social. It includes an anonymous, confidential, online selfassessment for all soldiers and will include a similar assessment for family members that will
guide training needs. Resiliency skills to be taught include problem solving, energy management,
explanatory style, and putting things in perspective. The Army is training master trainers to help
other soldiers learn resiliency techniques. Additional pre- and postdeployment boosters will be
implemented.75
Learned optimism is not about looking at the world through rose-colored glasses or having
unrealistic or self-deceptive expectations.76 Instead, it is about teaching skills needed to promote
mental health and to avoid excessive worry, rumination, or spirals of negative thinking.63,64
Resiliency interventions such as the PRP might be disseminated more broadly in schools,
worksites, and other community settings.1,2,4
Character Strengths

With respect to mental illness, professionals have applied a common language and diagnostic
criteria to identify and treat mental illness using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV).77 However, the DSM-IV is explicitly designed to diagnose
and treat mental illness but provides no guidance to assess positive thoughts, emotions, or
behaviors.78,79 In 2000, with growing interest and support from the field of positive youth
development, Peterson and Seligman organized a research team to develop a scientific
classification scheme comparable to the DSM-IV as well as assessment strategies to identify
psychological strengths.79 After extensively reviewing literature from multiple disciplines, this
team considered cross-cultural validity, possible unintended political consequences of their effort
(e.g., value-laden applications, such as selecting people on the basis of strengths), and the
implications of creating a classification system versus a taxonomy.79 Team members assumed
that character, like traits, was stable and general and that character strengths were not bound to
culture. They then identified explicit criteria that guided their classification system to identify
character strengths of human goodness and excellence of character (see box on this page).
Criteria Used by Positive Psychologists for Classifying Strengths of Human Goodness
and Excellence of Character

A character strength
1. Is ubiquitous: is widely recognized across cultures (e.g., bravery, kindness).
2. Is fulfilling: contributes to individual fulfillment, satisfaction, and happiness
broadly construed.

3. Is morally valued: is valued in its own right and not for tangible outcomes it
may produce.
4. Does not diminish others: elevates others who witness it.
5. Has a nonfelicitous opposite: has obvious antonyms that are negative.
6. Is traitlike: is an individual difference with demonstrable generality and
stability.
7. Is measureable: has been successfully measured by researchers as an
individual difference.
8. Is distinct: is not redundant (conceptually or empirically) with other character
strengths.
9. Has paragons: is strikingly embodied in some individuals.
10.Has prodigies: is precociously shown by some children or youths.
11.Can be selectively absent: is missing altogether in some individuals.
12.Has enabling institutions: is the deliberate target of societal practices and
rituals that try to cultivate it.

Source. Peterson and Seligman.79

Finally, they developed and validated the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) to
measure these character strengths. The VIA-IS includes 6 core or signature strengths, each
with 3 to 4 component definitions (Table 1). Signature strengths are the mental and physical
activities that we perceive as natural and desirable and that energize rather than exhaust us.78 The
VIA-IS, completed by a million individuals in more than 200 nations since 2002, has acceptable
construct validity, discriminant validity, convergent validity, stability and internal consistency
reliability, and test-retest reliability.21,8083 The VIA-IS has also been modified and validated for
use in youths aged 10 to 17 years (VIA-Youth).83

TABLE 1
Core Strengths of Human Goodness and Character as Recognized by
Positive Psychology

The VIA-IS is available for public use84 and, as part of the survey assessment, provides users
with their strengths' rankings (so they can see where their strengths rank compared with other

strengths), along with examples of methods to enhance strengths. Park and Peterson83 have
provided information on scoring, and Peterson21 has described methods to practice using
signature strengths in new and different ways (i.e., reinforcing the strength) for mental health
promotion. One Internet-based intervention encouraging people to use their strengths in new
ways increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms for 6 months.24 Such strengthsbased development has been linked to many positive outcomes in educational and workplace
settings.85 The public availability of the VIA-IS, its broad approach to characterizing individual
strengths, and its psychometric properties make it potentially appealing for behavioral science
intervention research as well as for health communication messaging.
Although more research is needed regarding its psychometric properties in diverse
sociodemographic subgroups, the VIA-IS offers good face validity for use in communities. For
example, among 383 African American adolescents surveyed with the VIA-Youth, love of
learning was related to self-reported abstinence for boys and self-reported avoidance of drug use
for boys and girls.86 In a Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatric rehabilitation program to
promote recovery from mental illness, simply taking the VIA-IS was described as an intervention
itself, with most participants reporting positive outcomes associated with the experience.9 The
study investigators encouraged veterans to use prompts such as a strengths card, which they
carried with them as a reminder of their positive attributes and as help in their daily recovery.
Applying the VIA-IS could also be useful to those coping with other chronic diseases. For
example, parents might devise ways to use their children's VIA strengths to help them better
manage chronic illness. Additional studies of character strengths may show that these strengths
buffer against risky health behaviors or adverse health outcomes. Such studies may help target
health promotion messages and health marketing strategies to motivate groups in ways that
complement their self-perceived strengths. However, because the VIA-IS is based solely on selfreport, it is still unclear whether and how it relates to more objective measures of strengths,
whether the strengths it identifies are enduring, and whether strength-based interventions are
effective over the long term.
Although a comprehensive review of interventions that improve positive emotions is beyond the
scope of this essay, practicing gratitude, performing acts of kindness, and mindfulness relaxation
(nonjudgmentally focusing awareness on thoughts, sights, and sounds) can increase positive
emotions and well-being.36,56,87 Gratitude helps people to savor their life experiences and
situations, maximize satisfaction and enjoyment from those experiences, and minimize
adaptation.54 Gratitude might also help people to cope with stress and trauma by positively
reinterpreting negative life experiences.33,88 Relative to control groups, participants who were
asked to write down 5 things for which they were grateful (e.g., cherished interactions,
overcoming obstacles) once a week for 10 weeks reported greater life satisfaction, more
optimism, and fewer health complaints.56 Other gratitude exercises improved positive affect and
physical activity,36,56,88 sleep quality,89 and prosocial behavior.90 Students who performed and

tracked random acts of kindness increased their happiness relative to that of a control group.36,91
Additional examples of interventions that have been shown to increase individual positive
emotions and well-being are available,22,36 as are examples of their use in schools.70
Go to:

SOCIAL-ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND ENABLING

INSTITUTIONS
Social and economic factors influence health and mental health, including access to employment;
safe working conditions; education, income, and housing; stable and supportive family, social,
and community environments characterized by opportunities for autonomy, social inclusion, and
freedom from discrimination and violence; and taxation of addictive substances to prevent
abuse.14 Institutions such as schools, homes, worksites, places of worship, and health care
settings that have been traditional targets for public health disease prevention and health
promotion interventions also are settings for evidence-based mental health promotion
interventions.2 Policy initiatives that affect social and economic determinants of mental health
(e.g., housing, employment) and that support the integration of evidence-based mental health
promotion programs in community settings are warranted to improve population health.1,4
For those interested in fostering community or organizational change for mental health
promotion, Appreciative Inquiry, a method closely aligned with positive psychology, holds
promise.92 Appreciative Inquiry is a systematic development and improvement process for
management and organizational change based on deliberately positive assumptions about people,
organizations, and relationships.92 Its processes shift the focus and dialogue from problem
solving to fostering assets by seeking to examine the strengths in a group, thus providing the
starting point for positive change. In a typical Appreciative Inquiry session, participants are led
through a series of systematic and provocative but affirming questions to identify what is
positive in the group and to connect people in ways that heighten energy, vision, and action for
change.92,93
Appreciative Inquiry has been successfully and innovatively used by numerous private and
governmental organizations, including the Cleveland Clinic, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the US Navy, Save the Children, the United Nations Global Compact, Imagine
Chicago, Imagine Nagaland (India), and the United Kingdom's National Health Service.9294
Nursing has also frequently used Appreciative Inquiry to enhance education, management, and
clinical care outcomes.9599 It may supplement current health behavior change models for health
promotion.7 For example, health care providers, health educators, and other caregivers might
incorporate Appreciative Inquiry in their interactions with patients, clients, families, or groups to
help them focus on capabilities and competencies related to a healthy lifestyle. A provider might
ask a patient a few questions from an Appreciative Inquiry perspective to help motivate behavior
change or to help assist in sustaining behavior change (Table 2). Extensive resources exist to

incorporate Appreciative Inquiry principles into daily settings or to more formally structure an
Appreciative Inquiry summit for groups or organizations.92,93 The implementation and
effectiveness of Appreciative Inquiry in health promotion warrants more thought and study.

TABLE 2
Use of Appreciative Inquiry as a Health Behavior Change Intervention
Between a Clinician or Health Educator and a Client
Go to:

CONCLUSIONS
Positive mental health is a resource for everyday living and results from individual and
community assets. The health promotion theories, methodologies, and populations available
through public health partners offer greater reach for positive psychology practitioners to
implement and evaluate their interventions across diverse sociodemographic subgroups and
community settings that currently receive little attention. Likewise, the asset-based and
affirmation paradigms of positive psychology offer additional strategies for mental health
promotion. Mental health promotion and positive psychology offer the public (1) an updated way
of thinking about mental health that provides for the richness of human experience, (2) additional
ways to describe and value the full spectrum of mental health to lessen the stigma associated
with mental illness and to initiate conversations about mental health,100 (3) enhancement of
psychological screening,101 and (4) evidence-based individual, community, and social
interventions that can enhance positive mental health.1,2,4,31 Ultimately, greater synergy between
positive psychology and public health might help promote positive mental health in innovative
ways that can improve overall population health.
Go to:

Human Participant Protection

No protocol approval was needed because no human participants were involved in this