Snowden Lonnie R, Yamada Ann-Marie
School of Social Welfare and Center for Mental Health Services Research, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7400, USA.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:143-66. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143846.
As high-profile reviews have appeared and international interest has grown, sophisticated studies of the U.S. population continue to document racial and ethnic disparities in initiation of mental health care and in continuity of care. Many explanations focus on cultural factors: trust and treatment receptiveness, stigma, culturally distinctive beliefs about mental illness and mental health, culturally sanctioned ways of expressing mental health-related suffering and coping styles, and client preferences for alternative interventions and treatment-seeking pathways, as well as unresponsive programs and providers. The research itself has become more rigorous and informative, but it continues to lack theoretical focus and does not yet yield cumulative findings. Too few studies have addressed community and regional differences or differences between mental health treatment programs and systems, or considered mental health-related policies that are very likely linked to disparities. Theoretically well-formulated studies on representative samples can provide a comprehensive explanation of access disparities in cultural and culture-related terms that inform a broad-based plan of remedial intervention.
随着备受瞩目的综述文章相继发表以及国际关注度不断提高,针对美国人口的深入研究持续记录了在心理健康护理起始阶段和护理连续性方面存在的种族和族裔差异。许多解释聚焦于文化因素:信任和对治疗的接受度、耻辱感、关于精神疾病和心理健康的文化独特信念、文化认可的表达与心理健康相关痛苦的方式及应对方式、客户对替代干预措施和寻求治疗途径的偏好,以及反应迟钝的项目和服务提供者。研究本身变得更加严谨且信息丰富,但仍缺乏理论重点,尚未产生累积性研究结果。极少有研究探讨社区和地区差异或心理健康治疗项目与系统之间的差异,也未考虑很可能与差异相关的心理健康政策。基于具有代表性样本的理论构思完善的研究能够从文化及与文化相关的角度全面解释获得治疗机会的差异,从而为广泛的补救干预计划提供依据。