4.7 Article

Mental health of those directly exposed to the World Trade Center disaster: Unmet mental health care need, mental health treatment service use, and quality of life

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 110-114

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.016

关键词

WTC disaster; Unmet mental health care need; Health related quality of life; Mental health service use; Multinomial logistic regression

资金

  1. CDC-NIOSH [2U50OH009739, 1U50OH009739]
  2. CDC-ATSDR [U50/ATU272750]
  3. CDC-NCEH
  4. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mental health service utilization several years following a man-made or natural disaster can be lower than expected, despite a high prevalence of mental health disorders among those exposed. This study focused on factors associated with subjective unmet mental health care need (UMHCN) and its relationship to a combination of diagnostic history and current mental health symptoms, 5-6 years after the 9-11-01 World Trade Center (WTC) disaster in New York City, USA. Two survey waves of the WTC Health Registry, after exclusions, provided a sample of 36,625 enrollees for this analysis. Important differences were found among enrollees who were categorized according to the presence or absence of a self-reported mental health diagnosis and symptoms indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder or serious psychological distress. Persons with diagnoses and symptoms had the highest levels of UMHCN, poor mental health days, and mental health service use. Those with symptoms only were a vulnerable group much less likely to use mental health services yet reporting UMHCN and poor mental health days. Implications for delivering mental health services include recognizing that many persons with undiagnosed but symptomatic mental health symptoms are not using mental health services, despite having perceived need for mental health care. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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