Search

Traditionally, psychiatry has been defined and practiced as a branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses. Based on growing empirical evidence, we believe that this definition warrants expansion to include the concept of positive psychiatry. In the present article, we provide a critical overview of this emerging field and a select review of relevant scientific literature. Positive psychiatry may be defined as the science and practice of psychiatry that seeks to understand and promote well-being through assessment and interventions involving positive psychosocial characteristics (PPCs) in people who suffer from or are at high risk of developing mental or physical illnesses. It can also benefit nonclinical populations. Positive psychiatry has 4 main components: (1) positive mental health outcomes (eg, well-being), (2) PPCs that comprise psychological traits (resilience, optimism, personal mastery and coping self-efficacy, social engagement, spirituality and religiosity, and wisdom-including compassion) and environmental factors (family dynamics, social support, and other environmental determinants of overall health), (3) biology of positive psychiatry constructs, and (4) positive psychiatry interventions including preventive ones. There are promising empirical data to suggest that positive traits may be improved through psychosocial and biological interventions. As a branch of medicine rooted in biology, psychiatry, especially with the proposed conceptualization of positive psychiatry, is well poised to provide major contributions to the positive mental health movement, thereby impacting the overall health care of the population.

To examine the association between supportive environments and adolescent suicidal behavior, especially among marginalized minority groups. Participants included 12,196 middle and 16,981 high school students who completed the 2019 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess the association between three protective factors that were part of a supportive environment (feeling like they matter to people in their community, usually eating dinner at home, having a trusted adult) and suicidality (plan or attempt), controlling for key demographics (sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity). Moderating effects of demographics were also explored. All supportive environment variables were protective of making a suicide plan and making a suicide attempt (ORs < 0.75, p-values < 0.005). Students of minority identities were significantly more likely to make a suicide plan (middle school ORs: 1.34–3.51, p-values < 0.0005; high school ORs: 1.19–3.38, p-values < 0.02) and attempt suicide (middle school ORs: 1.42–3.72, p-values < 0.006; high school ORs: 1.38–3.25, p-values < 0.0005) compared to students with majority demographic characteristics. Generally, the associations between having a supportive environment and suicidality did not vary within sexual orientation, gender identify, or race/ethnicity subgroups, suggesting that these supportive environment factors were more universally protective. However, a few associations were stronger among students in the majority demographic groups. These data suggest that having a supportive environment is protective of suicidality for adolescents from both majority and minority demographic groups. A supportive environment is protective of adolescent suicide plan and attempt. Minority sexual, gender, and racial identities are risk factors for suicidality. Minority and majority students are protected by supportive environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]