Summary: For decades, “mental wellbeing” has been used widely but defined inconsistently. A new international consensus study has clarified what positive mental health means by identifying specific dimensions that describe how people feel, function, and connect.
Researchers surveyed 122 experts across 11 disciplines—from economics and medicine to theology—and reached agreement on a common taxonomy. The study distinguishes core psychological components of wellbeing from external influences, giving policymakers, clinicians, workplaces and communities a clear framework for measurement and intervention.
Key Facts
- Why a definition matters: Lead researcher Dr. Matthew Iasiello compares defining wellbeing to standardizing blood pressure measurement—without a shared definition, research and policy cannot be reliably compared or applied.
- Wellbeing and mental illness are distinct: The consensus makes clear that positive mental health is not simply the absence of disorder. People can experience high levels of wellbeing while living with conditions such as depression or anxiety.
- Drivers versus definition: Factors like physical health, income, housing, coping strategies and spirituality were identified as important drivers of wellbeing—but not part of the definition itself. These external and contextual supports influence wellbeing but do not constitute the psychological state.
- More than feeling good: Positive mental health is defined as a combination of emotional states, psychological functioning and social connection that enables a meaningful and manageable life, even during difficulty.
- Policy and practice use: The taxonomy provides a shared blueprint so governments, employers, schools and health services can align measurement, design targeted programs and evaluate outcomes consistently.
Source: University of Adelaide
Background
A study led by researchers at the University of Adelaide in collaboration with Be Well Co and international partners has produced the first cross-disciplinary consensus on what positive mental health entails. Published in Nature Mental Health, the research used the Delphi method to gather and refine expert opinion across multiple rounds.
Experts from 11 fields—including Economics, Medicine, Nursing, Philosophy, Psychiatry, Clinical and Health Psychology, Positive Psychology, Public Health, Sociology and Theology—rated candidate dimensions and differentiated between dimensions that define positive mental health and factors that drive it.
The panel achieved consensus (75% or greater) on 19 dimensions. Six dimensions reached near-unanimous agreement (90%+), identified as essential components of positive mental health:
- Meaning and purpose – a sense that life is worthwhile and goal-directed
- Life satisfaction – an overall positive evaluation of one’s life
- Self-acceptance – a positive, non-judgmental view of oneself
- Connection – close, caring relationships with others
- Autonomy – a sense of control over choices and self-expression
- Happiness – frequent positive mood and cheerfulness
These core elements form the basis of a preliminary taxonomy intended to standardize how positive mental health is conceptualized and measured, helping to reduce fragmentation across research, services and policy.
Dr. Matthew Iasiello of the University of Adelaide explained that viewing wellbeing as an interplay of feeling, functioning and connecting brings clarity and enables more consistent measurement. Associate Professor Dan Fassnacht from the University of the Sunshine Coast described the taxonomy as a scientifically agreed blueprint for what good mental health looks like.
Co-researcher Dr. Joep van Agteren noted the practical value: workplaces, governments and community groups can use the taxonomy to focus programs on the psychological aspects that most directly support flourishing—such as increasing autonomy, strengthening social connection, or promoting meaning—rather than relying solely on interventions that address external drivers.
Key Questions Answered:
A: Not necessarily. Happiness is one of the six core pillars. A person can still have strong wellbeing if they have meaning, close relationships and a sense of autonomy, even during brief periods of sadness or stress.
A: Experts classified income and spirituality as drivers rather than defining features. They help shape and support wellbeing but are not the internal psychological state that the taxonomy describes.
A: Organizations can use the taxonomy to identify specific gaps—such as low autonomy or weak social connection—and design targeted interventions that are more likely to improve the psychological aspects of wellbeing rather than one-size-fits-all initiatives.
Editorial Notes:
- This article was edited by a Neuroscience News editor.
- The journal paper was reviewed in full by the editorial team.
- Additional context was provided by staff to clarify implications for policy and practice.
About this mental health research news
Author: Annabel Mansfield
Source: University of Adelaide
Contact: Annabel Mansfield – Adelaide University
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access. “Towards a Taxonomy of Positive Mental Health: A Delphi Consensus Study” by M. Iasiello, J. van Agteren, K. Ali, E. Kolovos, P. J. Batterham, F. Goodman, A. Jarden, T. B. Kashdan, M. Kyrios, L. G. Oades, D. Weziak-Bialowolska & D. B. Fassnacht. Nature Mental Health. DOI: 10.1038/s44220-026-00617-5
Abstract
Towards a Taxonomy of Positive Mental Health: A Delphi Consensus Study
Inconsistent definitions of positive mental health, flourishing and mental wellbeing across disciplines hinder reliable measurement, intervention design and policy. This study used the Delphi method to develop expert consensus on a preliminary taxonomy of positive mental health dimensions. One hundred twenty-two experts across 11 relevant disciplines completed three iterative rounds of rating. From an initial list and subsequent expert suggestions, 19 dimensions reached consensus (≥75% agreement) for inclusion in the taxonomy. Six dimensions exceeded 90% agreement: meaning and purpose, life satisfaction, self-acceptance, connection, autonomy and happiness. The resulting taxonomy aims to standardize conceptualization, promote cross-disciplinary collaboration, and improve the design and evaluation of interventions and policy.