Mental Health Research in the Global Era: Training the Next Generation.

Mental Health Research in the Global Era: Training the Next Generation.
复制标题

DOI:
10.1007/s40596-015-0437-3
复制
发表时间:
2016-08
期刊:
Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Wainberg ML
Wainberg ML
中科院分区:
其他
文献类型:
--
作者:
Sweetland AC;Oquendo MA;Carlson C;Magidson JF;Wainberg ML

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

精神疾病是全球残疾的主要原因之一,但据估计,只有不到25%的受影响者能够获得治疗。在许多低收入环境中,估计只有不到10%的受影响者能够获得基本的精神卫生保健,即使他们这样做,也往往低于最低道德和临床标准[1]。全球精神卫生学科致力于通过预防精神障碍和改善精神病治疗的可及性,特别是在低资源环境中,减少国家内部和国家之间的精神卫生差距[2]。跨文化心理健康的研究可以追溯到19世纪末,当时欧洲精神病学家和人类学家开始在他们的殖民地识别和记录当地特定的精神疾病。跨文化精神病学分为两个研究传统:“相对主义者”,他们专注于描述文化限制的综合征,“普遍主义者”,他们试图在精神障碍的表现中识别跨文化的普遍性。这两种研究传统都是从殖民主义范式中产生的,在这种范式中,西方研究者研究非西方的“他者”。相对主义者主要依赖定性和人种学方法[4],而普遍主义者则采用流行病学方法来估计西方标准定义的精神障碍的跨文化患病率。
Psychiatric disorders are among the leading cause of disability worldwide, yet fewer than 25% of affected individuals are estimated to have access to treatment. In many low-income settings, it is estimated that less than 10% of affected individuals are able to access basic mental health care and, even when they do, it is often below minimum ethical and clinical standards [1]. The discipline of global mental health is dedicated to reducing mental health disparities within and between countries by preventing mental disorders and improving access to psychiatric treatment, particularly in low-resource settings [2]. The study of cross-cultural mental health dates back to the late 1800s, when European psychiatrists and anthropologists began to identify and document locally specific mental diseases in their colonies [3]. Transcultural psychiatry branched into two research traditions:“relativists,” who were focused on characterizing culture-bound syndromes, and “universalists,” who sought to identify universality across cultures in the manifestation of mental disorders [2]. Both research traditions emerged from a colonial paradigm, wherein Western researchers studied the non-Western “other.” Whereas relativists relied primarily on qualitative and ethnographic methods [4], universalists employed epidemiological methods to estimate the cross-cultural prevalence of mental disorders, as defined by Western criteria.