• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry >Prevalence of psychological distress: How do Australia and Canada compare?
【24h】

Prevalence of psychological distress: How do Australia and Canada compare?

机译：心理困扰的患病率：澳大利亚和加拿大如何比较？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective: To compare equivalent population-level mental health indicators in Canada and Australia, and articulate recommendations to support equitable mental health services. These are two somewhat similar resource-rich countries characterized by extensive non-metropolitan and rural regions as well as significant areas of socioeconomic deprivation. Methods: A cross-national epidemiology and equity study: primary outcome was Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) in recent national surveys. A secondary outcome was mental disorders rate since these surveys were 5-years apart. Results: Elevated distress, defined by K10 scores (0–40 range) of 12 and over, affected 11.1% Australians and 12.0% Canadians. Elevated distress in both countries affected more people in the lowest income quintile (21–27%) compared to the richest (6%). In the lowest income quintile, 1-in-4 Australians and 1-in-5 Canadians reported elevated distress – twice the national average in both countries. Australians in the lowest income quintile (over 5 million people) have a significantly higher risk by over a 5% for elevated distress compared to their low-income Canadian counterparts. After adjusting for effects of age and gender, the relative odds in the lowest quintile compared to richest was 6.4 for Australians and 3.5 for Canadians, which remained significantly different thus confirming greater inequity in Australia. Mental disorders affected approximately 1-in-10 people in both countries. Conclusions: This adds to the mental health prevalence monitoring in these two countries by supporting an overall prevalence of elevated distress in approximately 1-in-10 people. It supports large-scale public health interventions that target elevated distress in people with low incomes to order to achieve the biggest impact, and, to reduce the greater inequity in mental health indicators in Australians, policy-makers should consider eliminating gap-fees as they are illegal in Canada. As encouraged by World Health Organization, we highlight the importance of such population-level studies so that cross-national results can be reliably compared.
机译：目的：比较加拿大和澳大利亚同等人口水平的心理健康指标，并阐明支持公平心理健康服务的建议。这是两个类似的资源丰富国家，其特点是广泛的非都市和农村地区，以及严重的社会经济贫困地区。方法：一项跨国流行病学和公平性研究：在最近的全国调查中，主要结果是凯斯勒心理困扰量表（K10）。第二个结果是精神障碍发生率，因为这些调查相隔5年。结果：由12分及以上的K10评分（0-40范围）定义的高抑郁影响了11.1%的澳大利亚人和12.0%的加拿大人。在这两个国家，受痛苦加剧影响的最低收入五分之一人群（21-27%）比最富有的人群（6%）多。在收入最低的五分之一人群中，四分之一的澳大利亚人和五分之一的加拿大人报告了更高的痛苦程度——是这两个国家全国平均水平的两倍。与加拿大低收入人群相比，收入最低的五分之一人群（超过500万人）中的澳大利亚人遭受更高痛苦的风险要高出5%以上。在调整了年龄和性别的影响后，与最富有的人相比，最低五分位的澳大利亚人的相对几率为6.4，加拿大人的相对几率为3.5，两者仍然存在显著差异，从而证实了澳大利亚更大的不平等性。在这两个国家，大约十分之一的人患有精神障碍。结论：这增加了这两个国家的心理健康患病率监测，支持大约十分之一的人的总体患病率升高。它支持大规模的公共卫生干预措施，旨在降低低收入人群的痛苦，以达到最大的影响。为了减少澳大利亚人的心理健康指标的不公平性，决策者应该考虑取消GAP收费，因为这在加拿大是非法的。在世界卫生组织的鼓励下，我们强调了此类人口水平研究的重要性，以便能够可靠地比较跨国结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号