4.3 Article

Psychological distress among Kurdish immigrants in Sweden

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 190-196

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1177/1403494807085077

关键词

anxiety; immigrants; Kurds; poor self-reported health; psychological distress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To analyse whether there is an association between sex and poor self-reported health (SRH) and psychological distress in Kurdish immigrants. Methods: This cross-sectional study is based on a sample consisting of immigrants, aged 27 60 years, with self-reported Kurdish ethnicity (n=111, men; n=86, women) in Sweden originating from Iran and Turkey. It is based on data collected in 1996 from the first Swedish National Survey on the living conditions of immigrant groups conducted by Statistics Sweden. The prevalences of reporting poor health, sleeping difficulties, general fatigue and anxiety were estimated by sex. The association between sex and SRH and psychological distress was analysed by an unconditional logistic regression model estimating odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. The final model was adjusted for age, marital status, education, housing and employment. Immigrant-specific migration-related variables were used to explore possible reasons for the sex differences. Results: Kurdish men and women had a high prevalence of poor SRH and psychological distress. Age-adjusted odds ratios for anxiety were higher in Kurdish women. Sex differences in anxiety remained even when marital status, education, housing and employment were taken into account. Conclusions: Kurdish men and women report a high prevalence of poor SRH and indicators of psychological distress. Women had a higher risk for anxiety than men. Negative experiences of pre-migration as well as post-migration experiences, such as economic difficulties, preoccupation with the political situation in the home country, perceived discrimination, and feelings of poor control over one's life, were associated with the outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据