Fordham University, Department of Psychology, 441 East Fordham Rd., Dealy Hall 226, Bronx, NY 10458, USA.
University of Windsor, Canada.
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:44-54. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.015. Epub 2014 Mar 19.
Mental health professionals from North America and Europe have become common participants in postconflict and disaster relief efforts outside of North America and Europe. Consistent with their training, these practitioners focus primarily on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as their primary diagnostic concern. Most research that has accompanied humanitarian aid efforts has likewise originated in North America and Europe, has focused on PTSD, and in turn has reinforced practitioners' assumptions about the universality of the diagnosis. In contrast, studies that have attempted to identify how local populations conceptualize posttrauma reactions portray a wide range of psychological states. We review this emic literature in order to examine differences and commonalities across local posttraumatic cultural concepts of distress (CCDs). We focus on symptoms to describe these constructs - i.e., using the dominant neo-Kraepelinian approach used in North American and European psychiatry - as opposed to focusing on explanatory models in order to examine whether positive comparisons of PTSD to CCDs meet criteria for face validity. Hierarchical clustering (Ward's method) of symptoms within CCDs provides a portrait of the emic literature characterized by traumatic multifinality with several common themes. Global variety within the literature suggests that few disaster-affected populations have mental health nosologies that include PTSD-like syndromes. One reason for this seems to be the almost complete absence of avoidance as pathology. Many nosologies contain depression-like disorders. Relief efforts would benefit from mental health practitioners getting specific training in culture-bound posttrauma constructs when entering settings beyond the boundaries of the culture of their training and practice.
来自北美和欧洲的心理健康专业人员已成为北美和欧洲以外冲突后和灾害救援工作中的常见参与者。这些从业者与他们的培训一致,主要关注创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)作为他们的主要诊断关注点。伴随人道主义援助工作的大多数研究同样起源于北美和欧洲,侧重于 PTSD,并反过来强化了从业者关于诊断普遍性的假设。相比之下,试图确定当地居民如何概念化创伤后反应的研究描绘了广泛的心理状态。我们回顾了这些本土文献,以检查当地创伤后文化概念困扰(CCD)之间的差异和共性。我们专注于症状来描述这些结构,即使用北美和欧洲精神病学中占主导地位的新克雷佩林式方法,而不是关注解释模型,以检查 PTSD 与 CCD 之间的积极比较是否符合表面有效性的标准。CCD 内症状的层次聚类(Ward 方法)提供了本土文献的写照,其特征是创伤性多终局和几个共同主题。文献中的全球多样性表明,受灾人口中很少有包括 PTSD 样综合征在内的心理健康分类法。造成这种情况的一个原因似乎是回避作为病理学的几乎完全缺失。许多分类法包含类似抑郁症的疾病。当进入培训和实践文化边界以外的环境时,心理健康从业者在特定的文化受限的创伤后结构方面接受具体培训,这将使救援工作受益。