Fostering Flourishing: Applying the 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework to Mitigate Adjustment Disorder in College Students
Author: Nadine Wilches, LCSW
Published: January, 2026 [Link]
Affiliations: MindArch Health
Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to Tim Ecklund, Ph.D., and Ronald Jackson, EdD, for their contributions to the discussions that helped shape this writing.
AI Use Acknowledgement: The author acknowledges the use of artificial intelligence in the organization, and citation formatting of this article. This technology was used as an assistive tool, ensuring a well-structured manuscript.
Fostering Flourishing: Applying the 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework to Mitigate Adjustment Disorder in College Students
Abstract
The transition to college represents a significant and often overwhelming period, during which many students experience the first onset or exacerbation of mental health issues. A review of mental health trends at university counseling centers reveals that Adjustment Disorder is one of the most common diagnoses, affecting nearly one-third of students seeking services and demonstrates a consistent increase in prevalence over the past decade (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2024). This trend highlights the limitations of a traditional, reactive, crisis-response model of mental healthcare, which is proving insufficient to address the systemic challenges of the modern college environment. This report posits that a fundamental shift toward a proactive, preventive, public health paradigm is necessary to foster student wellbeing. The 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework, a conceptual model derived from a comprehensive thematic analysis of over 2,000 research studies, offers a robust and actionable blueprint for this shift (Wilches, 2022). By synthesizing the framework's core principles with the specific stressors of the college experience, this analysis demonstrates how strengthening both internal psychological capacities and external environmental protective factors can serve as a potent buffer against the maladaptive stress responses characteristic of Adjustment Disorder. This report provides a detailed, element-by-element application of the framework and concludes with actionable recommendations for universities to cultivate a campus-wide culture of human flourishing, thereby reducing the institutional risk for student mental health problems and crises.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Silent Crisis: The Rising Tide of Adjustment Disorders in College Students
The transition to a university setting is a period of profound change and a convergence of multifaceted stressors for many young adults (Greene et al., 2004). This challenging context has led to a significant increase in the prevalence of mental health challenges among the student population, a trend that has prompted a critical re-evaluation of campus mental health services. Among the most prevalent diagnoses, Adjustment Disorder has emerged as a key indicator of a widespread systemic problem. Data from the Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH) indicates that between 2021 and 2024, Adjustment Disorder was the third most common diagnosis among students receiving counseling services, with a prevalence rate of 29.2% (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2024). This rate, which has shown a slight increase over the last decade, is part of a larger trend in which anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorders collectively affect nearly 90% of students in care (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2024).
The increasing frequency of this diagnosis suggests a fundamental misalignment between the demands of the college environment and the support systems in place to help students cope. An Adjustment Disorder is defined by a maladaptive emotional or behavioral reaction to an identifiable stressor, a reaction that "exceeds what would normally be expected" (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The fact that nearly one-third of students in care are meeting the diagnostic criteria for a "maladaptive" response to what are considered normative life events, (such as leaving home, academic demands, and forming new relationships) indicates that the very nature of the college transition has become a risk factor in itself (Greene et al., 2004; Zins et al., 2004).
This is not merely a problem of individual pathology but rather a symptom of a system that fails to adequately provide the conditions for healthy coping and adaptation.
1.2 The Insufficiency of a Reactive Model: The Case for Prevention
The current mental health paradigm on many campuses is largely a reactive, crisis-response model (Wilches, 2022). It waits for a student's symptoms to escalate to a level of clinical significance before an intervention is initiated, often leading to a significant delay between the onset of symptoms and treatment (Wilches, 2022). In the broader mental health landscape, this delay is estimated to be 11 years, a gap that is particularly dangerous for a youth population where suicide is the second leading cause of death for individuals aged 10 to 34 (Wilches, 2022).
Beyond the human cost, this reactive approach is also economically and logistically unsustainable. The financial burden of mental health conditions like depression and anxiety is immense, yet mental health receives a disproportionately small percentage of government funding (Wilches, 2022). Furthermore, the prescriptive, individual treatment model is not scalable to address the needs of an entire student population, especially given the widespread shortage of mental health professionals (Wilches, 2022; Zins et al., 2004). To truly address the root cause of mental health issues, universities will need to move beyond treating the symptoms of a failing system and adopt a public health approach. This paradigm, as outlined in the 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework, proactively intervenes in the community with resources, education, and environmental changes designed to build resilience and prevent crises before they occur (Wilches, 2022).
2. Understanding Adjustment Disorder in the College Context
2.1 Defining Maladaptive Stress Response
Adjustment Disorder is a clinical diagnosis characterized by a group of emotional or behavioral symptoms that develop within three months of exposure to a significant stressor (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The symptoms are considered "maladaptive" because they are either more severe than what would be expected for the specific stressor or they significantly interfere with a person's social, academic, or occupational functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The disorder is not an innate trait but a reaction to a stressor, influenced by an individual's temperament, past experiences, and pre-existing vulnerabilities (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Therefore it falls under the category of preventable disorders.
The disorder manifests in a variety of subtypes, each with its own set of prominent symptoms. Students may present with an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, characterized by feelings of sadness, tearfulness, and hopelessness (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Alternatively, a student might have Adjustment Disorder with anxiety, displaying nervousness, excessive worry, and jitteriness (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Other subtypes include mixed anxiety and depressed mood, disturbance of conduct (e.g., reckless or destructive behavior), or a combination of both emotional and behavioral symptoms (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The physical symptoms of chronic stress, such as headaches, insomnia, and heart palpitations, are also common manifestations of the disorder, reflecting a profound mind-body connection in the stress response (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Sterling & Eyer, 1988). The diversity of these symptoms of college stress, underscores the need for a comprehensive, multi-dimensional approach to prevention.
2.2 The Unique Stressors of the College Transition
The college environment is a crucible of change, placing a unique and often overwhelming burden on students (Greene et al., 2004). The stressors are not singular but multifaceted, compounding to create a state of chronic overwhelm.
Academic Pressure: Students face the rigorous demands of coursework, the pressure to maintain a high GPA, and the fear of failing to meet the standards required for future career success (Zins et al., 2004). This relentless academic pressure is a significant source of anxiety and burnout.
Financial Strain: The financial burden of tuition, textbooks, and living expenses places a major stressor on students and their families (Zins et al., 2004). This strain can force students to take on part-time jobs, further compounding time management challenges and exacerbating feelings of overwhelm.
Psychosocial Transition: For many traditional-age students, college is the first experience of separation and individuation from their family of origin (Greene et al., 2004). They must navigate new social dynamics, form new relationships, and take on adult responsibilities without having fully developed the necessary emotional and cognitive maturity. This transition can lead to social isolation and a lack of support, which are known risk factors for mental health issues (Zins et al., 2004).
The unique combination of these stressors, often experienced simultaneously, creates an environment where students may be pushed to a "breaking point," leading to the onset of Adjustment Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These stressors are likely more difficult for college students now compared to 20 years ago due to several key changes in society and technology. The cost of higher education has risen dramatically. This means today's students are taking on significantly more debt, a burden that can feel overwhelming and last for decades after graduation.
The rise of technology and social media has also created new pressures. Social media often presents a curated, idealized version of others' lives, leading to a constant cycle of comparison and feelings of inadequacy for many students. This can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and social isolation, even though students are more connected digitally than ever before. Furthermore, the widespread availability of news and information have introduced a new level of social and political stress. Students are more aware of global issues and societal problems, which can contribute to a sense of helplessness and chronic worry while also away from their childhood safety and support network.
3. The 5-Elements Framework: A Public Health Paradigm for Flourishing
The 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework is a conceptual model designed to provide a comprehensive, evidence-informed definition of wellbeing that can guide proactive, preventive mental health strategies (Wilches, 2022). Developed through a reflexive thematic analysis of over 2,000 research studies and expert interviews, the framework operates on the principle that wellbeing is not merely the absence of illness but the presence of flourishing (Wilches, 2022).
The model's theoretical foundations are drawn from multiple psychological and sociological schools of thought, including Systems Theory, which posits that an individual's wellbeing is inseparable from the health of the systems in which they operate (Wilches, 2022). The framework's central innovation is its dual-factor structure, which separates the elements of wellbeing into two distinct but interdependent categories: internal Psychological Health Factors and external Protective Factors (Wilches, 2022). The internal factors represent an individual's personal capacities and resilience (e.g., self-awareness, mindset), while the external factors represent the environmental conditions that buffer stress and promote health (e.g., belonging, routine) (Wilches, 2022). This holistic perspective moves beyond an individual deficit model and places shared responsibility on both the individual and their environment to create conditions conducive to wellbeing. The following table provides a concise overview of the framework's five core elements and their key factors.
3.1 Table 1: The 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework
4. Applying the Framework: A Strengths-Based Approach to Prevention
This section applies the 5-Elements Framework to the specific challenge of mitigating Adjustment Disorder in college students, demonstrating how each element's factors can be leveraged to build a proactive, protective system.
4.1 The Secure Element: Cultivating Stability and Belonging
The stress of leaving a familiar environment and the fear of the unknown are primary triggers for Adjustment Disorder (Greene et al., 2004; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The symptoms of nervousness and separation anxiety often seen in the disorder directly correlate with a lack of internal and external security (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The Secure element provides a roadmap for addressing this.
The framework's external protective factors highlight the critical need for a supportive environment. The need for a sense of belonging is a fundamental human motivator, and research confirms that it is related to better health and longevity (Chavis et al., 2008; Neff et al., 2005). Campus initiatives that build connections among peers and between students and instructors can directly buffer against the social isolation that contributes to maladaptive stress responses (Chavis et al., 2008; Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2025; The Scholarly Teacher, 2025). By implementing strategies like icebreakers, collaborative projects, and peer mentoring, universities can intentionally foster a sense of cohesion and acceptance. The importance of reliability and a calm environment is also a core part of the Secure element (Wilches, 2022). Faculty and staff who provide consistent syllabi and class modality, transparent policies, and a sense of dependability can create a reliable system that reduces a student's fear and anxiety during a time of transition (Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2025; The Scholarly Teacher, 2025).
On the internal side, the Secure element emphasizes self-compassion, which has been shown to be a powerful tool for reducing chronic academic stress and helping students respond constructively to setbacks (Neff et al., 2005). The research highlights that while campus-wide initiatives are valuable, a single faculty member can serve as a profound agent of change by using students' names, acknowledging their complex lives, and demonstrating empathy (Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2025). This transforms the classroom from a passive learning space into an active protective system, empowering every person on campus to be a part of the solution.
4.2 The Regulated Element: Managing Stress and Enhancing Adaptive Coping
The physical symptoms of Adjustment Disorder, such as insomnia, headaches, and fatigue, are direct manifestations of a dysregulated stress response (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Sterling & Eyer, 1988). The Regulated element of the framework provides a model for addressing this physiological and emotional dysregulation by emphasizing both internal and external factors (Wilches, 2022).
Externally, the framework highlights the importance of providing an environment that promotes balance and routine (Wilches, 2022). This aligns with the increasing number of university-led wellness initiatives, such as "Wellness Wednesdays" and "Mental Health Days," which are designed to offer intentional breaks from academic stress through activities like mindfulness practices, exercise, and animal therapy (Winston-Salem State University, n.d.). These are systemic interventions that counter the relentless pressure of the academic schedule and provide opportunities for students to restore their physical and mental energy.
Internally, the Regulated element focuses on skills like emotional regulation and mindfulness (Wilches, 2022). The Penn Resilience Program and the WSSU RESILIENCE Program, for example, teach students "science-based tools" and "emotional intelligence" to help them navigate adversity and overcome counter-productive thinking habits (Winston-Salem State University, n.d.; Positive Psychology Center, n.d.). Research confirms that mindfulness, a practice of nonjudgmental attentiveness, can help college students experience lower levels of stress in response to academic demands and adopt more effective coping strategies (Langer, 1989). The framework's explicit inclusion of physiological factors like proper nutrition and hydration alongside emotional regulation is a critical component of a truly holistic, preventive model (Wilches, 2022). This approach recognizes that the physical symptoms of stress are not secondary; they are an integral part of the maladaptive response. Therefore, a university's preventive model must address both the mind and the body.
4.3 The Valued Element: Bolstering Self-Worth and Purpose
Feelings of hopelessness and a lack of joy are core symptoms of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The intense academic and social pressure of the college environment can lead students to base their self-worth on external validation and outcomes (Zins et al., 2004). When a setback occurs, this can trigger a crisis of self-worth that is central to a maladaptive response. The Valued element directly counters this by focusing on building an intrinsic sense of worth and purpose (Wilches, 2022).
On the internal side, the framework emphasizes the importance of recognizing one's intrinsic significance and finding meaning in one’s life (Wilches, 2022). The principles of Positive Psychology, which promote optimism and a sense of purpose, are directly applicable here (Neff et al., 2005). Externally, universities can foster these protective factors by creating environments that offer opportunities for meaningful impact and cohesion (Wilches, 2022). When students feel that their contributions matter and that they are part of a unified group with a shared purpose, their self-worth is bolstered in a way that is resilient to individual setbacks. This requires a systemic shift away from a hyper-competitive, individualistic academic model. Instead, by valuing consistent effort and contribution to a collective goal, universities can redefine success in a way that is less likely to trigger maladaptive responses.
4.4 The Decided Element: Cultivating Agency and Control
A common experience for students during the college transition is a sense of being overwhelmed, with a perceived loss of control over their time and circumstances (Zins et al., 2004). This lack of agency is a major stressor that can manifest as impulsive behavior or feelings of inadequacy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), hallmark symptoms of Adjustment Disorder. The Decided element provides a framework for restoring a sense of control and intentionality (Wilches, 2022).
The framework emphasizes internal factors such as control and mindset (Wilches, 2022). The belief in one's ability to influence circumstances and the cognitive framework to interpret challenges are critical to navigating adversity. Research has identified high self-efficacy as a key asset for resilience (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). University programs like the WSSU RESILIENCE Program actively teach "agency" and "cognitive flexibility" to help students learn from failure and overcome obstacles (Winston-Salem State University, n.d.).
Externally, the framework identifies "Process" and "Effort" as vital protective factors (Wilches, 2022). When a university provides clear, efficient processes for navigating its systems, (from financial aid to course registration) it reduces a major source of chronic stress and helps students maintain a sense of control. This also applies to the classroom, where the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offer students multiple avenues to engage with material and demonstrate their knowledge, thereby reducing the fear of failure and promoting a resilient, mastery-oriented mindset (Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2025). This demonstrates that a university's commitment to preventive mental health must extend to the simplification of its own bureaucracy.
4.5 The Related Element: Strengthening Social Support and Connection
Social isolation and a lack of strong social support are significant stressors that can trigger Adjustment Disorder (Greene et al., 2004; Zins et al., 2004). The symptoms of social withdrawal and isolation are direct manifestations of a breakdown in the Related element (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
The framework highlights the internal skills of vulnerability and empathy as crucial for forming authentic connections (Wilches, 2022). The willingness to be open about one's struggles and to understand the feelings of others are foundational to building strong relationships. On the external side, the framework emphasizes the need for environments that facilitate rapport, listening, and self-expression (Wilches, 2022). The existence of peer support networks, student-led mental health organizations, and intentional relationship-building activities in the classroom directly address this need (Zins et al., 2004; Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2025; The Scholarly Teacher, 2025). Research indicates that social support is a "valuable resource" for resilience (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). However, a nuanced understanding reveals that external support alone is not sufficient. One study found that a student with "very strong family and peer support" still experienced symptoms of anxiety and depression during critical times (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). This underscores that external support, while vital, must be paired with the internal "interpersonal strengths" and "regulatory strengths" of the individual (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). The framework's dual focus on both internal and external factors is therefore a critical component of a truly effective preventive strategy.
4.6 Table 2: Mapping College Stressors and Protective Factors to the 5-Elements Framework
4.7 A Strengths-Based Approach to Assessment
The 5-Elements Framework provides a conceptual basis for developing new assessment tools that measure wellbeing from a positive, strengths-based perspective, moving beyond traditional clinical tools that focus on pathology (Wilches, 2022). These new tools, the Psychological Health Survey and the Protective Factors Assessment, are designed to quantify the presence of favorable conditions that enhance mental health (Mindarch Health, n.d.).
The “Psychological Health Survey” is an anonymous, digital survey that uses positive framing to measure an individual’s internal wellbeing and what the framework defines as “intrapersonal success” (Mindarch Health, n.d.). It is designed to quantify mental health strengths rather than diagnose mental disorders (Mindarch Health, n.d.). The “Protective Factors Assessment” is a complementary tool that evaluates external factors in a person’s environment that act as a buffer against stress and strengthen mental wellbeing, or what the framework calls “interpersonal success” (Mindarch Health, n.d.). This assessment quantifies protective behaviors, environments, and situations and serves as a measure of stress resiliency (Mindarch Health, n.d.).
By using both tools, institutions can conduct pre- and post-evaluations of their health-promoting interventions, whether they target individuals or an entire population, to measure their effectiveness (Mindarch Health, n.d.). The aggregated, anonymous data helps universities identify opportunities for systemic and individual change, understand the psychological health needs of a population, and pinpoint the strengths within both the system and the individuals within it (Mindarch Health, n.d.). The results can also be disaggregated by demographic data to identify and support high-risk populations, using risk factor analytics to understand vulnerabilities and a strategic planning tool to take action (Mindarch Health, n.d.). Furthermore, individual participants receive a personalized score, an explanation of their mental health strengths and needs, and a custom action plan with guidance on strengthening their target goals (Mindarch Health, n.d.).
5. Case Studies: Campus Initiatives as Practical Applications
While not all universities explicitly use the 5-Elements Framework, a review of existing campus mental health programs reveals a clear alignment with its principles, validating its utility as a conceptual model.
5.1 The University of Texas at Austin and University of Washington: A Reactive and Proactive Mix
A review of the mental health resources at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) and the University of Washington (UW) demonstrates a hybrid approach (University of Texas at Austin, n.d.; University of Washington, n.d.). Both institutions maintain a robust reactive infrastructure, including counseling and mental health centers, and 24/7 crisis lines (University of Texas at Austin, n.d.; University of Washington, n.d.). These services are critical for addressing acute crises and providing individual treatment, which aligns with the traditional medical model.
However, both universities have also implemented proactive, systemic initiatives that directly align with the 5-Elements Framework. UT Austin offers "Texas Financial Wellness," which provides one-on-one counseling and workshops to help students with financial decision-making (University of Texas at Austin, n.d.). This program directly addresses the financial strain stressor (Zins et al., 2004) and aligns with the Decided element's emphasis on control and clear processes (Wilches, 2022). Similarly, UW's "LiveWell: Health Promotion & Prevention" program empowers students to "make informed health choices" through evidence-based programs (University of Washington, n.d.). This program aligns with the Regulated element's focus on building internal capacities for well-being through intentional practices (Wilches, 2022). These examples show that universities are already moving toward a preventive model, even if they are not using a formalized framework to guide their efforts.
5.2 The Penn and WSSU Resilience Programs: Teaching Internal Strengths
The Penn Resilience Program and the WSSU RESILIENCE Program are exemplary case studies in teaching the internal, psychological health factors of the framework. The Penn Resilience Program, which has been attended by over a million people, teaches "science-based tools" from cognitive-behavioral science and positive psychology (Positive Psychology Center, n.d.). These tools help students "navigate adversity," "overcome counter-productive thinking habits," and "build strong relationships," thereby directly enhancing their internal capacities in the Regulated, Valued, and Related elements of the framework (Wilches, 2022; Positive Psychology Center, n.d.). The program's scalability is particularly significant, as it demonstrates that such interventions can be implemented campus-wide (Positive Psychology Center, n.d.).
The WSSU RESILIENCE Program, created through a grant from the UNC System, similarly aims to build resilience across the entire campus community, including faculty and staff (Winston-Salem State University, n.d.). The program's definition of "academic resilience" includes "capacities such as persistence, creativity, emotional intelligence, grit, thriving, cognitive flexibility, agency, flourishing, and learning from failure" (Winston-Salem State University, n.d.). These capacities are direct parallels to the internal factors of the Regulated, Valued, and Decided elements (Wilches, 2022). The program's multi-faceted approach, which includes workshops, courses, and one-on-one interactions, is a textbook example of a systemic, evidence-based effort to proactively build a "resilience portfolio" for every student, thereby strengthening their internal defenses against maladaptive stress responses (Winston-Salem State University, n.d.; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).
5.3 Assessment as a Catalyst for Systemic Change: The 4P's of a Public Health Approach
While the case studies above highlight the value of both crisis-response and individual skills-based programs, a true public health approach requires systemic initiatives that address the core protective factors within the campus environment. This approach goes beyond treating individual students and instead focuses on building a resilient and health-promoting ecosystem through what MindArch Health refers to as the 4P's: Policies, Practices, Programs, and Places. This model relies on data from assessments like the Psychological Health Survey and the Protective Factors Assessment to identify gaps and inform strategic action (Mindarch Health, n.d.).
Policies: Assessment data can highlight systemic issues that need to be addressed at the institutional level. For example, data showing a high prevalence of financial strain (Zins et al., 2004) could lead to the development of new financial aid policies or more robust scholarship programs. Similarly, data on student mental health crises can inform new policies regarding leaves of absence and re-enrollment, allowing students to take time for treatment without risking their academic standing (Mental Health America, n.d.).
Practices: Data can drive changes in the day-to-day practices of faculty and staff across the university. For example, data on student disengagement and academic stress could lead to professional development for faculty on how to build rapport and create inclusive teaching practices (Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2025; The Scholarly Teacher, 2025). Data can also be used to train staff as "gatekeepers" to identify at-risk students and provide early, proactive interventions (Mental Health America, n.d.).
Programs: Assessment data provides a clear picture of what is working and what is not, allowing for the strategic allocation of finite resources to programs that are proven to be effective. When aggregated data shows a need for specific types of support, such as nutrition workshops, sleep campaigns, or peer mentorship, administrators can develop new programs or adjust existing ones to address those needs directly. This data-driven approach shifts the focus from a "one-size-fits-all" model to one that offers personalized, targeted support based on the unique needs of the student population (Mindarch Health, n.d.; Jisc, 2025; Stressed Out and Stopping Out, 2022).
Places: The physical and virtual environments of a campus are critical protective factors. Data can be used to identify gaps in these environments and inform changes. For instance, data on stress and overwhelm could lead to the creation of more designated quiet spaces or wellness rooms. Analytics related to the use of campus resources, such as gym facilities or dining halls, could reveal a need to expand meal programs or update facilities to better serve the student body (Stressed Out and Stopping Out, 2022; Jisc, 2025). This proactive approach ensures the campus environment itself is a buffer against stress and a contributor to student wellbeing.
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
The rising rates of Adjustment Disorder among college students are a clear signal that the current reactive mental health paradigm is insufficient to address the systemic challenges of the college environment (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2024). A fundamental shift toward a proactive, public health approach is not merely an option but a necessity. The 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework offers a research-informed, comprehensive, and actionable blueprint for this transition (Wilches, 2022). By defining wellbeing through a clear structure of five elements and distinguishing between internal psychological capacities and external environmental protective factors, it provides a shared language for assessment, intervention, and systemic change (Wilches, 2022).
The application of this framework reveals that universities can strengthen student mental health by focusing on a dual-pronged strategy: empowering individuals with the skills to build their own resilience while simultaneously architecting environments that are inherently protective and health-promoting. The analysis of existing campus programs at universities like UT Austin, UW, Penn, and WSSU demonstrates that these principles are already being implemented in practice, even if not under a unified framework. Adopting a conceptual model like the 5-Elements Framework would make these efforts more intentional, integrated, and effective.
To move beyond simply reacting to crises and to begin to build a future where more students have the internal resources and external support to lead psychologically healthy lives, the following actionable recommendations are offered:
For University Leadership: A formal re-evaluation of campus resources is necessary to shift funding and institutional focus from solely crisis management to a hybrid model that prioritizes prevention. The adoption of a shared language for wellbeing, such as the 5-Elements Framework, could guide initiatives across all departments, from student affairs to academic administration, ensuring a consistent, systemic approach.
For Faculty and Staff: Professional development should be made available to equip all members of the campus community with the skills to create "protective classrooms" and work environments. This includes training on inclusive teaching strategies, fostering a growth mindset, and recognizing the importance of transparent processes and compassionate feedback as tools for prevention.
For Student Affairs and Health Services: An "all-hands-on-deck" approach should be adopted, integrating mental health principles into every aspect of campus life. This means building a "resilience portfolio" for every student by ensuring they have access to both internal skills-based programs and external resources that provide belonging, routine, and a sense of purpose. The goal is to build a system where the conditions for flourishing are the norm, not the exception.
References
Alliant International University Center for Teaching Excellence. (2025). Cultivating a sense of belonging and building rapport.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Barnett, K., Mercer, S. W., Norbury, M., Watt, G., Wyke, S., & Guthrie, B. (2012). Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet, 380(9836), 37-43.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115-128.
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.
Brown, B. (2006). Shame resilience theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 87(1), 43-52.
Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Prentice-Hall.
Center for Collegiate Mental Health. (2024). Diagnostic prevalence and trends in college counseling. Pennsylvania State University.
Chavis, D. M., Lee, J. G., & Acosta, M. (2008). The Sense of Community. In K. T. T. W. W. P. P. R. J. Dalton, E. R. (Ed.), Community Psychology: Linking individuals and communities (pp. 237-257). Wadsworth Publishing.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding protective factors and resources. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(3), 193-207.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219-239.
Greene, R. R., Galambos, C., & Lee, Y. (2004). Resilience theory: Theoretical and professional conceptualizations. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 8(4), 75-91.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299.
Gutman, L. M., & Feinstein, L. (2008). Children's well-being in primary school: Pupil and school effects. British Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 517-535.
Jisc. (2025, March 13). University mental health day: How data can improve students' wellbeing and mental health. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://analytics.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2025/03/13/university-mental-health-day-how-data-can-improve-students-wellbeing-and-mental-health/
Kamenetz, A. (2018, May 25). A public health approach to gun violence. NPR.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302-317.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543-571.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.
Langford, R., Bonell, C., Jones, H., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S., Waters, E.,... & Campbell, R. (2015). The World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools framework: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 130.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.
Markham, W. A., & Aveyard, P. (2003). A new theory of health promoting schools based on human functioning, school organisation and pedagogic practice. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1209-1220.
Mental Health America. (n.d.). College and university response to mental health crises. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://mhanational.org/position-statements/college-and-university-response-to-mental-health-crises/
Mindarch Health. (n.d.). Survey tool. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://www.mindarchhealth.com/survey-tool
Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y., & Dejitterat, G. (2005). Self-compassion and academic resilience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 47-57.
Positive Psychology Center. (n.d.). Penn Resilience Program and PERMA™ Workshops. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/services/penn-resilience-training
Ritzer, G. (2021). Essentials of sociology (4th ed.). SAGE.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Saxena, S., Jané-Llopis, E., & Hosman, C. (2006). Prevention of mental and behavioural disorders: implications for policy and practice. World Psychiatry, 5(1), 5-14.
Sterling, P., & Eyer, J. (1988). Allostasis: A new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In S. Fisher & J. Reason (Eds.), Handbook of life stress, cognition and health (pp. 629-649). John Wiley & Sons.
Stewart, E. B. (2007). School structural characteristics, student effort, and non-minority and minority student achievement. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(2), 341-367.
Stressed Out and Stopping Out. (2022, December). The mental health crisis in higher education. Gallup and the Lumina Foundation.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.
The Scholarly Teacher. (2025). The power of belonging: Enhancing student success through inclusive teaching strategies.
University of Texas at Austin. (n.d.). Health & well-being. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://www.utexas.edu/campus-life/health-and-wellbeing
University of Washington. (n.d.). UW Well-Being for Students. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://wellbeing.uw.edu/
van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 557-573.
Wilches, N. (2022). The 5-Elements of Systemic Wellbeing Framework: A Conceptual Model for Preventive Mental Health. [User-provided document].
Winston-Salem State University. (n.d.). The WSSU RESILIENCE Program. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://www.wssu.edu/academics/colleges-and-departments/university-college-and-lifelong-learning/resilience.html
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say?. Teachers College Press.
