Introduction: A Crisis of Care
Youth grappling with complex psychological challenges often seek help from the public healthcare system, hoping to find understanding, empathy, and meaningful support to navigate their struggles. For many of these young people, their challenges are not merely isolated mental health issues but are deeply connected to the environments and relationships in which they have lived. However, the prevailing psychiatric approach within public healthcare systems often operates within a deficit-based framework, focusing on diagnosing symptoms, categorizing disorders, and implementing standardized interventions. While these approaches can provide structure and facilitate certain treatments, they frequently overlook the nuanced, relational, and contextual factors that contribute to a young person’s psychological distress [1, 2].
This reliance on a deficit-based model can inadvertently exacerbate the already significant disconnect between healthcare providers and the young people they aim to serve. Young people entering the system may feel as though their struggles are being reduced to a checklist of symptoms or a diagnosis, rather than being understood within the broader tapestry of their lived experiences. For youth with histories of trauma, this dynamic can feel particularly alienating and invalidating. Their challenges are often inextricably tied to histories of relational insecurity, neglect, and social marginalization—factors that a purely clinical or diagnostic lens struggles to fully capture or address. Without an emphasis on the relational and contextual elements of care, many young people leave the system feeling misunderstood, unseen, or even re-traumatized by their experiences within it.
The limitations of traditional approaches become especially evident when working with youth whose psychological struggles stem from or are compounded by trauma. Trauma fundamentally disrupts a person’s sense of safety, trust, and connection, leaving deep scars that can manifest as behavioral challenges, emotional dysregulation, or difficulties forming secure relationships. These challenges are not simply "symptoms" to be eradicated; they are often adaptive responses to experiences of profound insecurity and harm. Yet, conventional psychiatric frameworks can pathologize these responses, treating them as isolated problems to be fixed rather than as understandable reactions to adversity. This not only fails to address the root causes of the young person’s distress but may also reinforce feelings of shame, inadequacy, and disconnection.
Moreover, the focus on standardized protocols and medicalized care can overshadow the importance of creating a therapeutic environment that prioritizes safety, trust, and connection. For youth with trauma histories, the healing process hinges on the establishment of relationships that actively counter the experiences of invalidation and harm they have endured. Unfortunately, traditional models of care often struggle to integrate these relational aspects, as they prioritize professional detachment, diagnostic accuracy, and efficiency over the cultivation of genuine human connection.
This paper explores these limitations through a case example, shedding light on how traditional psychiatric approaches can inadvertently perpetuate feelings of alienation and frustration among young people seeking help. It underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift towards relational, safety-oriented, and humanizing care—one that recognizes the central role of trust and connection in the healing process. This shift requires moving beyond a purely clinical framework and embracing a holistic approach that validates the young person’s experiences, fosters empowerment, and prioritizes collaboration between providers and youth. By reimagining care in this way, healthcare systems can better meet the needs of youth with complex psychological challenges, particularly those with histories of trauma, and help them move towards healing and recovery in a manner that feels authentic, supportive, and transformative.
Case Example: Emma – The Invisibility of Relational Trauma
Emma, a 15-year-old, presents herself with severe social withdrawal, self-harm, and depression. While these symptoms are readily classified within diagnostic frameworks, the traditional assessment and treatment often neglect the relational context that fuels her distress [3, 4]. Emma’s treatment, focused primarily on symptom reduction through medication and individual therapy sessions, fails to acknowledge the underlying relational trauma that has shaped her identity and functioning. Consequently, Emma experiences her treatment as another form of judgment and invisibility, further solidifying her feelings of isolation and hopelessness. This illustrates how a purely biological approach can deepen negative self-perceptions and hinder healing.
Trauma and the Imperative of Relational Healing
Trauma, particularly childhood trauma, often stems from deeply rooted experiences of relational insecurity, invalidation, and neglect [5, 6]. These early wounds shape an individual's understanding of themselves and the world around them, often leaving them with a pervasive sense of unworthiness or mistrust. Given the relational nature of such trauma, healing cannot be an isolated endeavor. True recovery requires the presence of supportive, reliable relationships that actively counter the negative patterns of connection established in early life. Healing relationships provide a safe space where individuals can experience validation, trust, and genuine care—qualities that are essential for rebuilding their sense of self and restoring hope.
For youth like Emma, these healing relationships must come from adults, particularly therapists and healthcare providers, who are willing to go beyond the traditional detached, clinical approach. Instead of maintaining emotional distance, practitioners need to demonstrate genuine interest, compassion, and an authentic willingness to understand the youth's unique story and struggles. Trauma survivors often feel disconnected and unseen, and these feelings can only begin to be repaired when they are met with consistent empathy and a commitment to truly “being with” them through their healing journey.
This shift in approach also requires a fundamental rethinking of the "expert-patient" dynamic that often characterizes therapeutic relationships. Rather than positioning themselves as authoritative figures imparting knowledge or solutions, therapists must engage with youth as equals and collaborators in the healing process. This egalitarian stance fosters mutual respect and empowerment, encouraging young people to reclaim agency over their narratives and develop a sense of ownership over their recovery. By affirming the youth’s voice and perspective, therapists help them move from being passive recipients of care to active participants in their healing.
Furthermore, relational healing involves creating an environment that validates the survivor’s emotions and experiences, recognizing their resilience and strengths while also addressing the profound pain they have endured. This process may require exploring difficult memories and reconstructing those narratives in ways that are both empowering and affirming. Supportive relationships act as a mirror through which individuals can see themselves in a new, more compassionate light, enabling them to reframe their understanding of the past and develop healthier relational patterns for the future.
Ultimately, the process of healing from relational trauma is deeply interpersonal. It emphasizes the profound power of human connection and the necessity of creating spaces where survivors feel safe, valued, and understood. Only within such environments can youth like Emma begin to challenge the internalized messages of invalidation and neglect and instead construct new narratives grounded in self-worth, agency, and hope. Therefore, the therapist's role transcends that of a clinician and becomes that of a partner in co-creating a future unshackled by the weight of past wounds.
The Therapeutic Relationship as a Cornerstone of Change
Building a therapeutic alliance rooted in trust, acceptance, and unconditional positive regard is not just beneficial—it is essential for fostering meaningful healing and growth in youth navigating trauma [7, 8]. This type of relationship serves as the foundation for a safe and supportive therapeutic environment where individuals feel valued and respected, rather than judged or pathologized. For Emma, for instance, creating such a space would provide her with a much-needed counterpoint to the invalidating and neglectful experiences of her past. By offering a consistent sense of safety and reliability, her therapist could help Emma begin to rebuild the shattered sense of trust and self-worth that her trauma has eroded.
In practice, this means actively listening to Emma’s story with empathy and genuine curiosity, validating her feelings and experiences without rushing to fit them into diagnostic categories or predetermined frameworks. It also involves moving away from labeling or viewing her behaviors and responses as “problematic.” Such labels often carry a weight of stigma and shame, further compounding the distress of youth like Emma, who are already struggling to make sense of their experiences. Instead, acknowledging and honoring her unique strengths, resilience, and perspective can shift the narrative from one of deficiency to one of potential and growth. This reframing allows Emma to see herself not as broken or flawed, but as someone who has endured significant challenges and possesses the inner resources to overcome them.
This approach is not just theoretical; research consistently highlights the critical importance of the therapeutic relationship in facilitating positive outcomes for youth with trauma [9]. Studies have shown that when therapists cultivate a relationship characterized by trust, acceptance, and compassion, it serves as a corrective emotional experience for individuals who have been hurt in relationships in the past. Such a relationship provides a model for healthy, secure connections and helps to dismantle internalized messages of worthlessness or distrust. For Emma, the process of being deeply heard and understood by her therapist would not only validate her past pain but also enable her to begin rewriting her personal narrative in a way that emphasizes hope, strength, and possibility.
Moreover, a therapeutic alliance that prioritizes unconditional positive regard shifts the focus of care from “fixing” perceived deficits to fostering adaptive capacities and self-compassion. This shift is particularly important for youth with trauma, as their coping mechanisms—no matter how maladaptive they may appear—often reflect the best strategies they could muster to survive profoundly difficult circumstances. Helping Emma recognize and appreciate her resilience, even in the face of immense adversity, can foster a sense of agency and empowerment. Through this process, she can begin to cultivate self-compassion, replacing the harsh self-criticism and shame that trauma often leaves in its wake with kindness and understanding toward herself.
In addition to emotional support, a strong therapeutic relationship creates the conditions necessary for therapeutic interventions to be effective. Whether the therapist is employing cognitive-behavioral techniques, narrative therapy, or somatic approaches, the success of these methods is significantly enhanced when the youth feels safe, valued, and understood. Without a solid foundation of trust and acceptance, even the most evidence-based interventions are unlikely to yield meaningful change. For Emma, the sense of connection she feels with her therapist would be the key to unlocking deeper levels of healing and growth, allowing her to engage fully in the therapeutic process.
Ultimately, building a therapeutic alliance rooted in trust and positive regard is more than a professional obligation—it is about honoring the humanity of youth like Emma and acknowledging that healing occurs within the context of compassionate and reliable relationships. By cultivating this alliance, therapists can help young people redefine their identities, embrace their strengths, and move toward a future defined by self-compassion, resilience, and connection.
The Transformative Power of Language in Therapy
The language employed in therapy carries significant weight in shaping a young person's perception of treatment and their willingness to engage in the healing process [9, 10]. Words have the power to either bridge the gap between a therapist and a young person or deepen the divide, particularly for youth grappling with the scars of trauma. A humanizing approach to language—one that prioritizes understanding, validation, and collaboration—is essential for creating an environment of safety and trust. Such an approach communicates to the youth that they are not defined by their struggles or reduced to a set of symptoms, but rather seen as whole, complex individuals with unique stories and strengths.
Conversely, pathologizing and labeling language can be profoundly harmful to traumatized youth. Terms that frame behaviors or emotional responses as “disorders” or “problems” risk reinforcing the internalized feelings of defectiveness and worthlessness that many trauma survivors already carry. For example, labeling a young person as “difficult” or “resistant” can make them feel judged or misunderstood, perpetuating the cycle of invalidation and rejection they may have experienced in their relationships. Such language can inadvertently convey the message that the young person is inherently flawed, rather than acknowledging the deeper context of their behavior as a response to adversity.
Instead of focusing on “diagnosing” problems, therapists must strive to understand them as adaptive responses to adverse experiences. This shift in perspective is particularly critical when working with youth whose coping mechanisms—though sometimes labeled maladaptive—have often developed as a means of survival in the face of overwhelming challenges. For example, a young person who displays emotional outbursts or shuts down in the face of stress is not “broken” or “disordered”; rather, these responses can be seen as ways their nervous system has learned to protect them from perceived threats. By reframing these behaviors as adaptations, therapists can help young people begin to see their responses with greater self-compassion and less self-blame.
Language that humanizes rather than pathologizes also plays a pivotal role in fostering collaboration between the therapist and the youth. Instead of positioning themselves as all-knowing experts, therapists can use language that conveys partnership, respect, and mutual exploration. For instance, phrases like “Let’s figure this out together” or “What do you think would feel helpful right now?” empower the young person to actively participate in their treatment. This collaborative approach not only helps build trust but also reinforces the young person’s sense of agency, which is often eroded by trauma.
Validation is another critical component of a humanizing approach to language. For traumatized youth, hearing a therapist say, “What you’re feeling makes sense given what you’ve been through” can be profoundly healing. Such statements validate the young person’s experience, demonstrating that their emotions and behaviors are not only understandable but also worthy of care and attention. This contrasts sharply with invalidating language, which can dismiss or minimize the young person’s feelings, leaving them feeling even more isolated and misunderstood.
Furthermore, the use of trauma-informed language extends beyond individual therapy sessions to the broader systems within which care is provided. In schools, hospitals, and other settings, the language used to describe young people can influence how they are perceived and treated by others. For example, replacing phrases like “at-risk youth” with “youth with untapped potential” shifts the focus from deficits to strengths, encouraging a more compassionate and hopeful perspective.
Ultimately, the language used in therapy is not merely a tool for communication; it is an active force that shapes the therapeutic relationship, the young person’s self-perception, and the overall trajectory of healing. By employing language that validates, empowers, and humanizes, therapists can create a space where young people feel safe to explore their experiences and begin the process of transformation. This shift from pathologizing to understanding is not just a linguistic change—it is a paradigm shift that places the dignity and humanity of the young person at the center of care.
Psychological Development, Trauma, and Neurobiology
Adolescence represents a pivotal stage in human development, during which individuals explore and solidify their sense of identity, values, and place in the world. This process of identity formation is complex and multifaceted, and it is particularly sensitive to the environmental and relational contexts in which an adolescent grows. Trauma, however, can severely disrupt this developmental process, casting long shadows over an adolescent's ability to develop a coherent and positive sense of self [11, 12]. The impacts of trauma during this critical period are not confined to the psychological domain; they extend deeply into the neurobiological foundation of development, reshaping the brain, altering the nervous system, and fundamentally influencing how a young person perceives themselves and the world around them.
Trauma's effects on the adolescent brain are profound and wide-reaching, affecting key areas such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus. The prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive functions like decision-making, impulse control, and planning, often shows delayed development or diminished functionality in individuals who have experienced significant trauma. This can result in difficulties with emotional regulation, decision-making, and future-oriented thinking. Similarly, the amygdala, the brain's center for processing fear and threat, can become hyperactive, leading to heightened states of vigilance, fear, and reactivity. The hippocampus, critical for memory formation and distinguishing between past and present experiences, may shrink in size, contributing to intrusive memories and difficulty distinguishing between current safety and past danger.
Additionally, trauma dysregulates the stress response system, leading to an overactive hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. This heightened stress response floods the body with stress hormones like cortisol, which, over time, can damage brain structures and perpetuate a state of chronic stress. For adolescents, whose brains are still undergoing significant growth and remodeling, these neurobiological changes can have long-term implications for their mental health, relationships, and overall well-being. The cumulative effect of trauma during this formative period can derail the natural trajectory of identity development, leaving adolescents feeling disconnected, disempowered, and uncertain about their future.
Effective treatment for trauma during adolescence must go beyond traditional talk therapy to address these neurobiological changes directly. Trauma-informed approaches that incorporate techniques to regulate the nervous system and promote healthy brain development are essential. Somatic-based therapies, for instance, focus on helping adolescents reconnect with their bodies and develop a sense of physical safety, counteracting the effects of a chronically activated stress response. Practices such as mindfulness, yoga, and grounding techniques have been shown to reduce hyperarousal, improve emotional regulation, and support the brain's capacity to reorganize and heal.
Neurofeedback is another promising intervention that directly targets the brain’s functioning, helping to normalize patterns of activity and reduce symptoms associated with trauma. By providing adolescents with real-time feedback about their brain activity, neurofeedback encourages self-regulation and enhances the brain's natural capacity for adaptation and growth. Similarly, therapies that emphasize bilateral stimulation, such as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), can help integrate traumatic memories and reduce the intensity of emotional and physiological reactions associated with them.
Trauma-informed care must also integrate relational approaches, as healthy relationships are a critical factor in supporting brain development and emotional healing during adolescence. The presence of caring, attuned adults can serve as a buffer against the effects of trauma, providing the consistent safety and validation necessary for adolescents to rebuild their sense of trust and connection. These relationships offer opportunities for co-regulation, where a calm and empathetic caregiver helps an adolescent navigate and regulate their emotional states, fostering a sense of stability and safety.
Incorporating psychoeducation about the neurobiological effects of trauma into treatment can also be empowering for adolescents and their caregivers. Understanding how trauma affects the brain and body can reduce feelings of shame and self-blame, helping adolescents see their responses as normal and adaptive rather than pathological. This knowledge can instill hope, showing that the brain's plasticity allows for healing and growth even after significant adversity.
Ultimately, addressing the neurobiological impacts of trauma during adolescence requires a holistic approach that recognizes the interplay between the brain, body, and relationships. By integrating interventions that promote nervous system regulation, enhance brain health, and foster secure connections, therapists can help adolescents not only recover from trauma but also continue along the path of identity formation with a renewed sense of strength, resilience, and self-understanding. Through such comprehensive care, adolescents can reclaim their developmental trajectory and build a future that reflects their full potential.
Harnessing the Power of Polyvagal Theory
Stephen Porges' Polyvagal Theory offers a groundbreaking framework for understanding how the autonomic nervous system responds to safety and danger, shedding light on the profound ways trauma impacts an individual’s ability to engage with the world [13, 14]. This theory highlights the dynamic interplay between the three primary states of the autonomic nervous system: the ventral vagal state (associated with safety, connection, and social engagement), the sympathetic state (associated with fight or flight responses), and the dorsal vagal state (associated with shutdown and disconnection). When individuals experience trauma, their nervous systems may become stuck in survival modes, oscillating between hypervigilance (fight or flight) and hypoarousal (shutdown), even in situations where there is no actual threat.
Trauma disrupts the body's capacity to accurately assess safety, causing the nervous system to interpret neutral or even positive interactions as threatening. This miscalibration is a survival mechanism, rooted in the nervous system's attempt to protect the individual from further harm. However, this state of chronic hypervigilance can prevent individuals from forming trusting relationships, engaging fully in therapeutic processes, and accessing the higher-order cognitive and emotional processes needed for healing. For trauma survivors, especially those with complex or developmental trauma, the autonomic nervous system remains on high alert, prepared to respond to perceived danger at the expense of relaxation, connection, and self-regulation.
Given these profound effects, therapeutic approaches must prioritize creating a sense of safety and regulation in order to facilitate emotional and cognitive processing. Without this foundational sense of safety, interventions aimed at addressing trauma may inadvertently retraumatize individuals or fail to produce meaningful change. Therapists must understand that healing begins with helping the individual move out of states of threat and into a state of regulated calm, where they feel secure enough to explore and process their experiences.
Techniques that directly engage the nervous system are particularly effective in achieving this regulation. Mindfulness practices, for example, help individuals cultivate present-moment awareness and reduce the tendency to ruminate on past trauma or anticipate future danger. By focusing attention on the breath, bodily sensations, or external stimuli, mindfulness exercises gently encourage the nervous system to shift from a state of hyperarousal to one of calm. This can be especially beneficial for individuals who feel stuck in fight-or-flight mode, as it provides a non-threatening way to reestablish a connection to their body and the present moment.
Breathwork is another powerful tool for calming the nervous system and encouraging a state of safety. Controlled breathing techniques, such as diaphragmatic breathing or box breathing, stimulate the vagus nerve, activating the parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system. This activation supports the transition from survival states to the ventral vagal state, where individuals are more capable of engaging socially, processing emotions, and accessing higher-level cognitive functions. Breathwork can be particularly grounding for trauma survivors, as it provides a tangible and immediate method for reducing physiological arousal and creating a sense of stability.
Co-regulation with a therapist or trusted individual also plays a vital role in helping trauma survivors achieve nervous system regulation. Co-regulation refers to the process by which a calm, attuned presence helps to soothe and stabilize another person’s nervous system. Through warm, empathetic interactions, therapists can model safety and connection, creating a relational environment where the client feels seen, understood, and supported. This process is especially important for individuals whose trauma stems from relational harm, as it provides an opportunity to repair their capacity for trust and connection. Over time, these experiences of co-regulation can help the client develop greater self-regulatory capacity, allowing them to navigate stress and emotion with increased resilience.
Polyvagal-informed therapeutic approaches also emphasize the importance of pacing and titration, ensuring that the client does not become overwhelmed or retraumatized during the healing process. By carefully observing the client’s autonomic responses, therapists can adjust the pace of therapy to maintain a sense of safety, gradually helping the client expand their tolerance for exploring difficult emotions and memories. This trauma-informed approach aligns with the principles of Polyvagal Theory, as it respects the nervous system’s need for safety and stability as a prerequisite for deeper emotional work.
Ultimately, Polyvagal Theory underscores the centrality of the nervous system in the healing process and the importance of creating conditions that foster safety, connection, and regulation. Techniques such as mindfulness, breathwork, and co-regulation offer practical and accessible ways to engage the nervous system, helping trauma survivors move out of states of threat and into a place where healing can occur. By prioritizing these principles, therapists can create an environment that supports recovery and empowers individuals to reclaim a sense of agency, trust, and connection in their lives.
Internal Family Systems (IFS): Fostering Inner Harmony
Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy offers a compelling and transformative framework for understanding and addressing the impact of trauma [15, 16]. Developed by Richard C. Schwartz, IFS views the individual not as a singular entity but as a system of interrelated “parts,” each with its own unique perspectives, feelings, and roles. These parts are not pathological or inherently negative but are natural aspects of the human psyche that arise to manage and respond to life experiences. Trauma, however, can disrupt the internal balance of this system, forcing certain parts to adopt extreme roles as a means of protection and survival.
For example, an individual who has experienced trauma may develop a highly vigilant “fearful part” that remains hyperalert to potential threats, or an “angry part” that acts out to defend against perceived harm. While these parts may appear problematic or maladaptive on the surface, IFS recognizes them as adaptive responses to overwhelming experiences. They are not the problem themselves but rather hold the burdens of pain, fear, or shame stemming from past events. These parts often operate out of a desire to protect the individual, even if their actions inadvertently create challenges or conflicts in the present.
IFS therapy seeks to foster internal balance by helping individuals access their core Self, which is characterized by qualities such as compassion, curiosity, calmness, and courage. The Self acts as a compassionate leader within the internal system, providing guidance and understanding to the various parts. Through this process, IFS aims to create harmony among the parts, enabling them to function collaboratively rather than in opposition or chaos. This approach not only facilitates healing but also empowers individuals to build a stronger sense of internal cohesion and agency.
One of the most profound aspects of IFS is its non-pathologizing stance. Unlike traditional therapeutic models that might label certain behaviors or emotional states as “disorders” or “symptoms,” IFS views all parts as valuable and purposeful, even when their roles appear extreme or disruptive. For instance, a part that engages in self-criticism may be attempting to motivate the individual or protect them from external judgment, while a part that numbs through avoidance or addiction may be trying to shield the person from overwhelming pain. By reframing these behaviors as efforts to help or protect, IFS shifts the therapeutic focus from “fixing” problems to understanding and addressing the underlying needs and burdens of each part.
The process of IFS therapy involves engaging with parts in a compassionate and curious manner. Therapists guide clients to identify and communicate with their parts, exploring the emotions, memories, and beliefs that drive their behaviors. Through this dialogue, individuals can begin to unburden their parts, releasing the pain, fear, or shame that has been carried for so long. For instance, a fearful part may reveal that its hypervigilance stems from a time when the individual was unsafe, and by acknowledging and validating this experience, the burden of fear can be lessened. Once parts are unburdened, they are free to take on healthier, more balanced roles within the system.
IFS also emphasizes the importance of creating a safe and supportive therapeutic environment. Trauma survivors often carry significant mistrust or resistance, as their internal systems are organized around self-protection. Therapists must approach this resistance with patience and respect, recognizing that even the most “difficult” or “stuck” parts are acting in service of survival. By cultivating a sense of safety and demonstrating genuine curiosity and care, therapists can help clients gradually build trust in the process and their own capacity for healing.
In addition to its applications in individual therapy, IFS has been effectively integrated into other modalities and settings, including group therapy, couples therapy, and trauma-focused interventions. Its holistic approach makes it particularly well-suited for addressing the complex, multifaceted impacts of trauma, which often involve not only emotional and cognitive difficulties but also relational and existential challenges. By addressing the whole person—rather than isolating symptoms or behaviors—IFS provides a comprehensive path to healing that honors the resilience and depth of the individual.
Ultimately, IFS therapy offers a powerful lens through which to view trauma and its effects. By recognizing the innate wisdom of the internal system and fostering collaboration among its parts, this approach enables individuals to transform their relationship with themselves and their past. Rather than being defined by their trauma, clients can reclaim their lives, guided by the qualities of their core Self and supported by an internal system that works in harmony. This process alleviates the burdens of trauma and cultivates a profound sense of empowerment, self-compassion, and wholeness.
Cultivating a Salutogenic Approach: Emphasizing Strengths
A salutogenic approach, which prioritizes health-promoting factors over the identification and treatment of pathology, offers a transformative framework for empowering traumatized youth [17, 18]. This perspective shifts the focus from what is "wrong" with an individual to what is "strong" within them, emphasizing their inherent resilience, strengths, and capacity for growth. By concentrating on the resources that already exist within and around a young person, this approach not only promotes well-being but also fosters hope, agency, and empowerment—key elements in the healing process.
One of the core tenets of a salutogenic approach is reframing the narrative of trauma. Rather than viewing the youth solely through the lens of their difficulties, this perspective seeks to understand their experiences in context, asking questions such as, “What happened to you?” and “What have you done to survive and adapt?” These questions not only validate the young person’s lived experiences but also recognize the ways in which they have demonstrated resilience in the face of adversity. By framing their coping mechanisms as adaptive responses rather than deficits, the salutogenic approach helps youth see themselves not as victims of their circumstances but as survivors with the capacity to thrive.
In practice, this approach involves identifying and amplifying the protective factors and resources that contribute to a young person’s sense of coherence and well-being. These resources can be internal, such as their creativity, problem-solving skills, or emotional intelligence, or external, such as supportive relationships, access to education, or engagement in meaningful activities. For instance, a young person who has developed strong advocacy skills as a result of navigating difficult social systems can be encouraged to see this as a strength that can be channeled into leadership or community involvement. By building on these existing resources, the therapeutic process becomes a collaborative effort focused on empowering the youth to take charge of their healing journey.
Another key principle of the salutogenic approach is fostering a sense of hope and possibility. Trauma often leaves individuals feeling powerless and stuck in a cycle of pain, but a focus on strengths and growth can create a sense of forward momentum. By emphasizing their capacity for change and their ability to overcome challenges, therapists and caregivers can help traumatized youth envision a future that is not defined by their past. This process may include setting achievable goals, celebrating small victories, and cultivating a growth mindset, which encourages the belief that abilities and circumstances can improve through effort and perseverance.
The salutogenic framework also aligns closely with trauma-informed care by promoting safety, connection, and empowerment. For youth who have experienced trauma, these elements are critical for rebuilding trust and fostering a sense of security. A focus on health-promoting factors naturally integrates practices that affirm the young person’s autonomy, validate their experiences, and create opportunities for them to engage actively in their care. For example, therapists can work with youth to identify coping strategies that align with their personal strengths and preferences, giving them a greater sense of control and ownership over the healing process.
Additionally, a salutogenic approach encourages collaboration and co-creation within the therapeutic relationship. Instead of positioning the therapist as the sole expert, this framework emphasizes a partnership where the youth’s voice, insights, and aspirations are central. By asking questions like, “What can we build from this?” the therapist invites the young person to take an active role in shaping their path forward. This collaborative process not only enhances engagement but also reinforces the youth’s sense of agency and self-efficacy, which are often undermined by trauma.
Importantly, this approach also challenges societal narratives that pathologize trauma survivors by shifting the focus from deficits to potential. It reframes behaviors often seen as problematic—such as withdrawal, hypervigilance, or emotional outbursts—as understandable and adaptive responses to overwhelming circumstances. This perspective not only reduces stigma but also fosters compassion, both from the youth toward themselves and from others around them. By normalizing their reactions and celebrating their resilience, the salutogenic approach helps to dismantle feelings of shame and self-blame, creating space for self-compassion and healing.
Ultimately, a salutogenic approach empowers traumatized youth by highlighting their strengths, validating their experiences, and fostering a sense of possibility. It encourages them to view themselves not as defined by their trauma but as capable individuals with the resources and potential to overcome adversity. By focusing on what can be built rather than what has been broken, this framework provides a hopeful and empowering pathway toward healing, resilience, and a brighter future. Through this lens, we see traumatized youth not as damaged or deficient but as individuals brimming with potential, ready to be supported in discovering their strengths and rewriting their stories.
Conclusion: A Call for Systemic Change
The current public healthcare system often emphasizes symptom reduction as the primary goal of treatment, sidelining the more nuanced understanding of the complex roots of trauma and its far-reaching impacts. While symptom management is undoubtedly important, this approach risks reducing individuals to a set of behaviors or diagnoses, failing to address the deeper relational, social, and emotional factors that underpin their struggles. This narrow focus can leave young people feeling unheard, misunderstood, and disconnected from the very systems that are meant to support them. For youth like Emma, who carry the weight of trauma, this approach is not only insufficient but may also inadvertently reinforce feelings of invalidation and alienation. A paradigm shift is urgently needed to move beyond this reductionist model and toward a more holistic, relational, and humanizing framework [19, 20].
This paradigm shift requires a fundamental change in the way the public healthcare system trains professionals, allocates resources, and delivers care. At its core, this transformation must prioritize relational, safety-oriented, and humanizing approaches that embrace the inherent complexities of trauma. Trauma is not a one-dimensional experience; it is a multifaceted disruption that affects the brain, body, relationships, and identity. Effective care, therefore, must reflect this complexity by moving beyond checklists of symptoms and rigid treatment protocols to a model that places trust, connection, and empowerment at the heart of the healing process.
Training healthcare professionals to adopt a trauma-informed lens is a critical first step in this shift. This involves equipping them with the knowledge and skills to understand how trauma shapes behavior, emotions, and physical health, as well as how to recognize and respond to the signs of trauma in their clients. Equally important is fostering the ability to build genuine, empathetic relationships with young people. Providers must learn to see beyond a diagnosis, understanding that behaviors often labeled as “problematic” are frequently adaptive responses to adverse experiences. For example, a young person who is hypervigilant or struggles with emotional regulation is not being “difficult”—they are responding to an environment that has conditioned them to prioritize survival over connection. By approaching youth with curiosity, empathy, and respect, professionals can create the sense of safety that is essential for healing.
Resource allocation must also reflect this shift in priorities. The current system often invests heavily in short-term, symptom-focused interventions, such as medication or brief therapeutic programs, while underfunding longer-term, relationally oriented approaches. While medications and structured interventions have their place, they cannot address the relational wounds that lie at the heart of trauma. System-wide change must redirect resources toward comprehensive, relationship-centered care models that allow for the time, space, and continuity needed to foster trust and connection. This includes increasing access to therapy modalities that emphasize relational safety, such as Internal Family Systems (IFS), somatic therapies, or trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, as well as community-based programs that build resilience and support outside of traditional clinical settings.
Practically, this means redesigning healthcare systems to prioritize the lived experiences and voices of young people. Rather than imposing a top-down model of care, systems must actively engage youth in co-creating their treatment plans, empowering them to reclaim agency over their healing journeys. This involves asking questions like, “What do you need to feel safe?” and “How can we support your strengths and goals?” rather than solely focusing on deficits or “fixing” behaviors. For Emma, this could mean working with her to identify her unique strengths and aspirations, helping her to see herself not as a collection of symptoms but as a person capable of growth, healing, and self-advocacy.
A critical element of this paradigm shift is recognizing the central role of relationships in healing. Trauma often occurs within relationships, and it is through relationships that healing must take place. This means fostering environments of safety, trust, and connection at every level of care—from the individual therapist-client relationship to the broader organizational culture of healthcare systems. Providers must actively work to humanize care, understanding that their interactions with youth are not just clinical encounters but opportunities to model healthy, secure relationships. For Emma, the simple act of feeling genuinely seen and heard by her therapist could be a transformative experience, helping her to rebuild a sense of trust and connection that trauma has disrupted.
Finally, this shift demands a cultural transformation within the healthcare system itself. Organizations must cultivate a culture that values relationships, emphasizes compassion, and prioritizes healing over efficiency or bureaucracy. This involves embedding trauma-informed principles into all levels of policy, practice, and leadership, ensuring that every aspect of the system—from intake procedures to treatment protocols to staff training—is designed with the goal of fostering safety and connection. It also requires addressing systemic barriers, such as stigma and inequities in access to care, that disproportionately impact marginalized and underserved youth.
Ultimately, the shift from a symptom-focused model to a relational, humanizing framework is about more than individual modifications—it requires a system-wide reimagining of what it means to provide care. By prioritizing relationships, embracing complexity, and empowering young people to reclaim their narratives, this new approach has the potential to transform the lives of youth like Emma, helping them not only to heal but to thrive. This is not just an aspirational vision; it is an ethical imperative for a system that seeks to truly serve those in its care.
References
[1] Read, J., & Dillon, J. (2013). Models of madness: Psychological, social and biological approaches to psychosis. Routledge.
[2] Horwitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The loss of sadness: How psychiatry transformed normal sorrow into depressive disorder. Oxford University Press.
[3] van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
[4] Perry, B. D., & Winfrey, O. (2021). What happened to you?: Conversations on trauma, resilience, and healing. Flatiron Books.
[5] Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
[6] Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Press.
[7] Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103.
[8] Wampold, B. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Routledge.
[9] Lambert, M. J. (2013). Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. Wiley.
[10] Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford University Press.
[11] Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. W.W. Norton & Co.
[12] Giedd, J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 77–85.
[13] Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
[14] Dana, D. A. (2018). The polyvagal theory in therapy: Engaging the rhythm of regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
[15] Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. Guilford Press.
[16] Holmes, T., & Holmes, L. (2010) Parts Work: An Illustrated Guide to Your Inner Life. Winged Lion Press.
[17] Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. Jossey-Bass.
[18] Lindström, B., & Eriksson, M. (2010). The salutogenic approach to health promotion. Health Promotion International, 25(1), 1–3.
[19] Patel, V. (2014). Mental health for all: A global agenda. The Lancet, 384(9942), 543–544.
[20] Collins, P. Y., Patel, V., Jo, J., & Saxena, S. (2011). Global mental health: A brief overview of concepts, frameworks, and actions. Psychiatric Services, 62(11), 1271–1278.
Legg til kommentar
Kommentarer