Assessing mental health treatment receipt among Asian adults with limited English proficiency using an intersectional approach.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American journal of epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1093/aje/kwae042
Charlie H Nguyễn, Lorraine T Dean, John W Jackson
{"title":"Assessing mental health treatment receipt among Asian adults with limited English proficiency using an intersectional approach.","authors":"Charlie H Nguyễn, Lorraine T Dean, John W Jackson","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>US Asian adults and people with limited English proficiency (LEP) confront mental health treatment receipt disparities. At the intersection of racial and language injustice, Asian adults with LEP may face even greater disparity, but studies have not assessed this through explicitly intersectional approaches. Using 2019 and 2020 National Survey of Drug Use and Health data, we computed disparities in mental health treatment among those with mental illness comparing: non-Hispanic (NH) Asian adults with LEP to NH White adults without LEP (joint disparity), NH Asian adults without LEP to NH White adults without LEP (referent race disparity), NH Asian adults with LEP to those without LEP (referent LEP disparity), and the joint disparity versus the sum of referent disparities (excess intersectional disparity). In age- and gender-adjusted analyses, excess intersectional disparity was 26.8% (95% CI, -29.8 to 83.4) of the joint disparity in 2019 and 63.0% (95% CI, 29.1-96.8) in 2020. The 2019 joint disparity was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.31-2.42) times that if the race-related disparity did not vary by LEP, and if LEP-related disparity did not vary by race; this figure was 2.70 (95% CI, 0.23-5.17) in 2020. These findings highlight the necessity of considering the intersection of race and LEP in addressing mental health treatment disparities. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1343-1351"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11458187/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

US Asian adults and people with limited English proficiency (LEP) confront mental health treatment receipt disparities. At the intersection of racial and language injustice, Asian adults with LEP may face even greater disparity, but studies have not assessed this through explicitly intersectional approaches. Using 2019 and 2020 National Survey of Drug Use and Health data, we computed disparities in mental health treatment among those with mental illness comparing: non-Hispanic (NH) Asian adults with LEP to NH White adults without LEP (joint disparity), NH Asian adults without LEP to NH White adults without LEP (referent race disparity), NH Asian adults with LEP to those without LEP (referent LEP disparity), and the joint disparity versus the sum of referent disparities (excess intersectional disparity). In age- and gender-adjusted analyses, excess intersectional disparity was 26.8% (95% CI, -29.8 to 83.4) of the joint disparity in 2019 and 63.0% (95% CI, 29.1-96.8) in 2020. The 2019 joint disparity was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.31-2.42) times that if the race-related disparity did not vary by LEP, and if LEP-related disparity did not vary by race; this figure was 2.70 (95% CI, 0.23-5.17) in 2020. These findings highlight the necessity of considering the intersection of race and LEP in addressing mental health treatment disparities. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用交叉方法评估英语水平有限的亚裔成年人接受心理健康治疗的情况。
美国的亚裔成年人和英语水平有限(LEP)的人面临着心理健康治疗收据不平等的问题。在种族不公正和语言不公正的交叉点上,有 LEP 的亚裔成年人可能面临更大的差异,但还没有研究通过明确的交叉方法对此进行评估。利用 2019 年和 2020 年全国药物使用和健康调查数据,我们计算了精神疾病患者在精神健康治疗方面的差异,并将其与以下数据进行比较:有 LEP 的非西语裔亚裔成人与无 LEP 的非西语裔白人成人(联合差距)、无 LEP 的非西语裔亚裔成人与无 LEP 的非西语裔白人成人(参考种族差距)、有 LEP 的非西语裔亚裔成人与无 LEP 的非西语裔亚裔成人(参考 LEP 差距),以及联合差距与参考差距之和(过度交叉差距)。在年龄和性别调整分析中,2019 年的超额交叉差距为联合差距的 26.8% (95% CI=-29.8%-83.4%) ,2020 年为 63.0% (95% CI=29.1%-96.8%)。如果与种族相关的差异不因 LEP 而异,2019 年的联合差异是 1.37(95% CI=0.31-2.42)倍;如果与 LEP 相关的差异不因种族而异,2020 年的联合差异是 2.70(95% CI=0.23-5.17)倍。这些研究结果突出表明,在解决心理健康治疗差异问题时,有必要考虑种族和 LEP 的交集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
期刊最新文献
All-Cause Mortality and 1990-1991 Gulf War Service within the Millennium Cohort Study (2001-2021). Using Double Negative Controls to Adjust for Healthy User Bias in a Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Safety Study. Modern Sources of Controls in Case-Control Studies. Editorial consultants 1. Characterizing state-level structural cisheterosexism trajectories using sequence and cluster analysis, 1996-2016, 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., and associations with health status and healthcare outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1