4.5 Article

Sociodemographic and clinical correlates of migrant status in adults with psychotic disorders: data from the Australian Survey of High Impact Psychosis

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 534-541

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S2045796014000535

Keywords

Clinical factors; migrants; psychotic disorders; schizophrenia; sociodemographic factors

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  2. QCMHR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The links between migrant status and psychosis have attracted considerable attention in recent decades. The aim of the study was to explore the demographic and clinical correlates of migrant v. Australia-born status in individuals with psychotic disorders using a large community-based sample. Method. Data were drawn from a population-based prevalence survey of adults with psychotic disorders. Known as the Survey of High Impact Psychosis (SHIP), it was conducted in seven Australian catchment areas in 2010. Logistic regression was used for the main analyses, examining associations of migrant status with sociodemographic and clinical variables. Results. Of the 1825 participants with psychotic disorders, 17.8% (n = 325) were migrants, of whom 55.7% (n = 181) were male. Compared to Australia-born individuals with psychosis, migrants were more likely to be currently married, to have completed a higher level at school, to have left school later, and to be employed with full-time jobs. Migrants with psychosis were either no different from or less impaired or disadvantaged compared to their Australian-born counterparts on a range of clinical and demographic variables. Conclusions. In a sample of individuals with psychotic disorders, there was no evidence to suggest that migrant status was associated with worse clinical or socio-economic outcomes compared to their native-born counterparts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available