Cristofthe J Fernandes, Félix Netos, Patrício Costa
{"title":"在 COVID-19 期间确定非风险、风险和交叉群体在精神疾病和福祉方面的差异,以及社会人口在精神健康结果中的作用。","authors":"Cristofthe J Fernandes, Félix Netos, Patrício Costa","doi":"10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few pandemic studies explored positive aspects of mental health and employed an intersectional perspective, which considers the concomitant action of different risk conditions. Our intersectional investigation aimed to identify possible mental illness and well-being differences between groups identified as psychologically vulnerable in the pandemic by the WHO (immigrants, minorities, and people with psychiatric diagnoses) and people without pre-existing risk factors while controlling for sociodemographic variables. A cross-sectional survey involved 1,134 participants (76.1% women) aged 18 to 76. We utilized the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) for mental disorder assessment and the Life Satisfaction and Positive and Negative Affects Scales for well-being evaluation. Since a variable-centered approach, multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between the groups in the variables of mental health, depression [F(2.1131)=72.7, p<.001], anxiety [F(2.1131)=78.0, p<.001], stress [F(2.11 1)=85.9, p<.001], and subjective well-being [F(2.1131)=53.6, p<.001]. The groups also differed when we employed a person-centered approach to analyze the variables jointly using Latent Profile Analysis. We identified six mental profiles composed of different levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being. Risk and intersectional groups were more likely to be characterized by Generalized Suffering [ORrisk=0.85, ORintersec=0.93] and Profound Anguish [ORrisk&intersec=0.97] profiles. Control of demographic variables indicated that mental health disparities were partially attributed to participant risk conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":21244,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying disparities in Mental Illness and Well-Being across Non-Risk, Risk, and Intersectional Groups during COVID-19 and the Sociodemographic's Role in Mental Health Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Cristofthe J Fernandes, Félix Netos, Patrício Costa\",\"doi\":\"10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3532\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Few pandemic studies explored positive aspects of mental health and employed an intersectional perspective, which considers the concomitant action of different risk conditions. Our intersectional investigation aimed to identify possible mental illness and well-being differences between groups identified as psychologically vulnerable in the pandemic by the WHO (immigrants, minorities, and people with psychiatric diagnoses) and people without pre-existing risk factors while controlling for sociodemographic variables. A cross-sectional survey involved 1,134 participants (76.1% women) aged 18 to 76. We utilized the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) for mental disorder assessment and the Life Satisfaction and Positive and Negative Affects Scales for well-being evaluation. Since a variable-centered approach, multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between the groups in the variables of mental health, depression [F(2.1131)=72.7, p<.001], anxiety [F(2.1131)=78.0, p<.001], stress [F(2.11 1)=85.9, p<.001], and subjective well-being [F(2.1131)=53.6, p<.001]. The groups also differed when we employed a person-centered approach to analyze the variables jointly using Latent Profile Analysis. We identified six mental profiles composed of different levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being. Risk and intersectional groups were more likely to be characterized by Generalized Suffering [ORrisk=0.85, ORintersec=0.93] and Profound Anguish [ORrisk&intersec=0.97] profiles. Control of demographic variables indicated that mental health disparities were partially attributed to participant risk conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3532\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3532","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
很少有大流行病研究探讨心理健康的积极方面,也很少有研究采用交叉视角,即考虑不同风险条件的共同作用。我们的交叉性调查旨在确定世界卫生组织确定的大流行病中心理脆弱群体(移民、少数民族和有精神疾病诊断的人)与没有预先存在风险因素的人之间可能存在的精神疾病和幸福感差异,同时控制社会人口变量。横断面调查涉及 1,134 名参与者(76.1% 为女性),年龄在 18 岁至 76 岁之间。我们使用抑郁、焦虑和压力量表(DASS-21)进行精神障碍评估,使用生活满意度和积极与消极情绪量表进行幸福感评估。由于采用了以变量为中心的方法,多变量分析表明,各组之间在心理健康、抑郁[F(2.1131)=72.7, p
Identifying disparities in Mental Illness and Well-Being across Non-Risk, Risk, and Intersectional Groups during COVID-19 and the Sociodemographic's Role in Mental Health Outcomes.
Few pandemic studies explored positive aspects of mental health and employed an intersectional perspective, which considers the concomitant action of different risk conditions. Our intersectional investigation aimed to identify possible mental illness and well-being differences between groups identified as psychologically vulnerable in the pandemic by the WHO (immigrants, minorities, and people with psychiatric diagnoses) and people without pre-existing risk factors while controlling for sociodemographic variables. A cross-sectional survey involved 1,134 participants (76.1% women) aged 18 to 76. We utilized the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21) for mental disorder assessment and the Life Satisfaction and Positive and Negative Affects Scales for well-being evaluation. Since a variable-centered approach, multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between the groups in the variables of mental health, depression [F(2.1131)=72.7, p<.001], anxiety [F(2.1131)=78.0, p<.001], stress [F(2.11 1)=85.9, p<.001], and subjective well-being [F(2.1131)=53.6, p<.001]. The groups also differed when we employed a person-centered approach to analyze the variables jointly using Latent Profile Analysis. We identified six mental profiles composed of different levels of depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being. Risk and intersectional groups were more likely to be characterized by Generalized Suffering [ORrisk=0.85, ORintersec=0.93] and Profound Anguish [ORrisk&intersec=0.97] profiles. Control of demographic variables indicated that mental health disparities were partially attributed to participant risk conditions.
期刊介绍:
The Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (RBP) is the official organ of the Associação Brasileira de Psiquiatria (ABP - Brazilian Association of Psychiatry).
The Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry is a bimonthly publication that aims to publish original manuscripts in all areas of psychiatry, including public health, clinical epidemiology, basic science, and mental health problems. The journal is fully open access, and there are no article processing or publication fees. Articles must be written in English.