The Validity of Screening for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Other Mental Health Problems among Asylum Seekers from Different Countries

The Validity of Screening for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Other Mental Health Problems among Asylum Seekers from Different Countries
复制标题

DOI:
10.1093/jrs/feq053
复制
发表时间:
2011-03-01
影响因子:
1.7
通讯作者:
Johansen, Lars Erik Eide
Johansen, Lars Erik Eide
中科院分区:
法学3区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Jakobsen, Marianne;Thoresen, Siri;Johansen, Lars Erik Eide

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

心理健康问题在寻求庇护者和难民中普遍存在。筛查工具可能是识别有严重心理健康问题的个人的有效工具,这将使我们能够为他们提供进一步的评估和治疗。这项研究的目的是评估筛选工具在寻求庇护者中的效用。哈佛创伤问卷(HTQ)和霍普金斯症状自评量表(HSCL-25)进行了验证,对复合国际诊断访谈(CIDI)在挪威的65名寻求庇护者的样本。在这一抽样中,95%的参与者报告说,他们经历过创伤性事件,任何精神障碍的患病率都很高(70%)。两种筛查工具和CIDI访谈之间的明显高一致性掩盖了两个亚组(MENA和索马里)之间的主要差异。心理健康问题一直被高估的中东和北非组,索马里组低估。原产地与症状报告显著相关。本研究中的两个主要组无法以相同的方式解释筛查工具的结果。因此,我们的研究结果并没有明确支持使用筛查工具来识别需要治疗的寻求庇护者。
Mental health problems are prevalent in asylum seekers and refugees. Screening instruments may be effective tools for identifying individuals with severe mental health problems, which will allow us to offer them further assessment and treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of screening instruments in asylum seekers. The Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ) and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25) were validated against the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in a sample of 65 asylum seekers in Norway. In this sample, exposure to traumatic events was reported by 95 per cent of participants, and the prevalence of any mental disorder was high (70 per cent). An apparently high agreement between the two screening instruments and CIDI interviews concealed major differences between two subgroups (MENA and Somalia). Mental health problems were consistently overestimated for the MENA group, and underestimated for the Somali group. The area of origin was significantly associated with symptom reporting. The results of the screening instruments could not be interpreted in the same manner across the two main groups in this study. Hence, our results did not unequivocally support the use of screening instruments to identify asylum seekers in need of treatment.