Comprehensive psychiatry · 2015
Demoralisation syndrome does not explain the psychological profile of community-based asylum-seekers.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hocking Debbie, Sundram Suresh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Demoralisation syndrome (DS) has been advanced as a construct that features hopelessness, meaninglessness, and existential distress. Demoralisation and DS have predominantly been considered secondary only to illness; hence there is scant research on demoralisation or DS in populations affected by extreme environmental stress.
AIMS: The current study aimed to determine the prevalence of demoralisation, its predictors, and the relevance of DS in a community-based forced-migrant population.
METHOD: A convenience sample of 131 adult asylum-seekers (n=98) and refugees (n=33) without recognised mental disorders in Melbourne, Australia, were assessed cross-sectionally on posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, post-migration stress, and demoralisation. Socio-demographic data were analysed with relevant clinical data. Predictive aims were investigated using bivariate statistical tests and exploratory aims were investigated using correlational and linear regression analyses.
RESULTS: Seventy nine percent of the sample met criteria for demoralisation (asylum-seekers=83%; refugees=66%), with asylum-seekers being 2.55 (95% C.I.=1.03-6.32, Z=2.03, p=.04) times more likely to be demoralised than refugees. No relationship between demoralisation and time in the refugee determination process emerged. The regression model explained 47.5% of variance in demoralisation scores for the total sample F(9,111)=13.07, p<.0001, with MDD and anxiety score making unique significant contributions.
CONCLUSIONS: Demoralisation was widespread through the asylum-seeker and refugee population and its prevalence was attributable to a range of social and psychiatric factors. However, DS had little explanatory power for psychiatric morbidity, which was more suggestive of a pan-distress symptom complex.
AIMS: The current study aimed to determine the prevalence of demoralisation, its predictors, and the relevance of DS in a community-based forced-migrant population.
METHOD: A convenience sample of 131 adult asylum-seekers (n=98) and refugees (n=33) without recognised mental disorders in Melbourne, Australia, were assessed cross-sectionally on posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, post-migration stress, and demoralisation. Socio-demographic data were analysed with relevant clinical data. Predictive aims were investigated using bivariate statistical tests and exploratory aims were investigated using correlational and linear regression analyses.
RESULTS: Seventy nine percent of the sample met criteria for demoralisation (asylum-seekers=83%; refugees=66%), with asylum-seekers being 2.55 (95% C.I.=1.03-6.32, Z=2.03, p=.04) times more likely to be demoralised than refugees. No relationship between demoralisation and time in the refugee determination process emerged. The regression model explained 47.5% of variance in demoralisation scores for the total sample F(9,111)=13.07, p<.0001, with MDD and anxiety score making unique significant contributions.
CONCLUSIONS: Demoralisation was widespread through the asylum-seeker and refugee population and its prevalence was attributable to a range of social and psychiatric factors. However, DS had little explanatory power for psychiatric morbidity, which was more suggestive of a pan-distress symptom complex.