Matthew Iasiello1, Joseph van Agteren2, Corey L M Keyes3, Eimear Muir Cochrane4. 1. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Lifelong Health Theme, Wellbeing and Resilience Centre, Australia; Flinders University, College of Nursing and Health Science, Australia. Electronic address: matthew.iasiello@sahmri.com. 2. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Lifelong Health Theme, Wellbeing and Resilience Centre, Australia; Flinders University, College of Medicine and Public Health, Australia. 3. Emory University, Department of Sociology, USA. 4. Flinders University, College of Nursing and Health Science, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High levels of positive mental health protect individuals from mental illness. This study investigates longitudinal change in positive mental health as a predictor of mental illness recovery in a cohort group. METHODS: Using data from the 1995 and 2005 Midlife in the United States cross-sectional surveys (n = 1,723), logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio that individuals diagnosed with a mental illness in 1995 would have recovered in 2005 based on whether their level of positive mental health changed over the 10-year period. RESULTS: Individuals who maintained or gained the highest levels of positive mental health were more than 27.6 and 7.4 times, respectively, more likely to recover when compared to those who maintained the lowest level of positive mental health. Those who maintained or gained moderate levels of positive mental health had more moderate likelihood of recovery, and those whose positive mental health declined to the lowest levels had no significantly different likelihood of recovery compared to participants whose positive mental health remained low. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the age of the data, and the inability to control for some predictors of recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that positive mental health may be an important resource for individuals to recover from mental illness and stay mentally healthy. Results point to the need to include positive mental health assessment and interventions into mental health care systems.
BACKGROUND: High levels of positive mental health protect individuals from mental illness. This study investigates longitudinal change in positive mental health as a predictor of mental illness recovery in a cohort group. METHODS: Using data from the 1995 and 2005 Midlife in the United States cross-sectional surveys (n = 1,723), logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio that individuals diagnosed with a mental illness in 1995 would have recovered in 2005 based on whether their level of positive mental health changed over the 10-year period. RESULTS: Individuals who maintained or gained the highest levels of positive mental health were more than 27.6 and 7.4 times, respectively, more likely to recover when compared to those who maintained the lowest level of positive mental health. Those who maintained or gained moderate levels of positive mental health had more moderate likelihood of recovery, and those whose positive mental health declined to the lowest levels had no significantly different likelihood of recovery compared to participants whose positive mental health remained low. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the age of the data, and the inability to control for some predictors of recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that positive mental health may be an important resource for individuals to recover from mental illness and stay mentally healthy. Results point to the need to include positive mental health assessment and interventions into mental health care systems.
Authors: Ali H Mokdad; Katherine Ballestros; Michelle Echko; Scott Glenn; Helen E Olsen; Erin Mullany; Alex Lee; Abdur Rahman Khan; Alireza Ahmadi; Alize J Ferrari; Amir Kasaeian; Andrea Werdecker; Austin Carter; Ben Zipkin; Benn Sartorius; Berrin Serdar; Bryan L Sykes; Chris Troeger; Christina Fitzmaurice; Colin D Rehm; Damian Santomauro; Daniel Kim; Danny Colombara; David C Schwebel; Derrick Tsoi; Dhaval Kolte; Elaine Nsoesie; Emma Nichols; Eyal Oren; Fiona J Charlson; George C Patton; Gregory A Roth; H Dean Hosgood; Harvey A Whiteford; Hmwe Kyu; Holly E Erskine; Hsiang Huang; Ira Martopullo; Jasvinder A Singh; Jean B Nachega; Juan R Sanabria; Kaja Abbas; Kanyin Ong; Karen Tabb; Kristopher J Krohn; Leslie Cornaby; Louisa Degenhardt; Mark Moses; Maryam Farvid; Max Griswold; Michael Criqui; Michelle Bell; Minh Nguyen; Mitch Wallin; Mojde Mirarefin; Mostafa Qorbani; Mustafa Younis; Nancy Fullman; Patrick Liu; Paul Briant; Philimon Gona; Rasmus Havmoller; Ricky Leung; Ruth Kimokoti; Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi; Simon I Hay; Simon Yadgir; Stan Biryukov; Stein Emil Vollset; Tahiya Alam; Tahvi Frank; Talha Farid; Ted Miller; Theo Vos; Till Bärnighausen; Tsegaye Telwelde Gebrehiwot; Yuichiro Yano; Ziyad Al-Aly; Alem Mehari; Alexis Handal; Amit Kandel; Ben Anderson; Brian Biroscak; Dariush Mozaffarian; E Ray Dorsey; Eric L Ding; Eun-Kee Park; Gregory Wagner; Guoqing Hu; Honglei Chen; Jacob E Sunshine; Jagdish Khubchandani; Janet Leasher; Janni Leung; Joshua Salomon; Jurgen Unutzer; Leah Cahill; Leslie Cooper; Masako Horino; Michael Brauer; Nicholas Breitborde; Peter Hotez; Roman Topor-Madry; Samir Soneji; Saverio Stranges; Spencer James; Stephen Amrock; Sudha Jayaraman; Tejas Patel; Tomi Akinyemiju; Vegard Skirbekk; Yohannes Kinfu; Zulfiqar Bhutta; Jost B Jonas; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Linda Bolier; Merel Haverman; Gerben J Westerhof; Heleen Riper; Filip Smit; Ernst Bohlmeijer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Daniel Carvalho; Carlos Sequeira; Ana Querido; Catarina Tomás; Tânia Morgado; Olga Valentim; Lídia Moutinho; João Gomes; Carlos Laranjeira Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-04-14