Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Nov 1;76(11):1133-1140. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1937.
This systematic review and meta-analysis is, to date, the first and most comprehensive to focus on the incidence of nonaffective psychoses among refugees.
To assess the relative risk (RR) of incidence of nonaffective psychosis in refugees compared with the RR in the native population and nonrefugee migrants.
PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for studies from January 1, 1977, to March 8, 2018, with no language restrictions (PROSPERO registration No. CRD42018106740).
Studies conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were selected by multiple independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were (1) observation of refugee history in participants, (2) assessment of effect size and spread, (3) adjustment for sex, (4) definition of nonaffective psychosis according to standardized operationalized criteria, and (5) comparators were either nonrefugee migrants or the native population. Studies observing ethnic background only, with no explicit definition of refugee status, were excluded.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality and validity as well as risk of bias of included studies. A random-effects model was created to pool the effect sizes of included studies.
The primary outcome, formulated before data collection, was the pooled RR in refugees compared with the nonrefugee population.
Of the 4358 screened articles, 9 studies (0.2%) involving 540 000 refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were included in the analyses. The RR for nonaffective psychoses in refugees was 1.43 (95% CI, 1.00-2.05; I2 = 96.3%) compared with nonrefugee migrants. Analyses that were restricted to studies with low risk of bias had an RR of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; I2 = 0.0%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants, 2.41 (95% CI, 1.51-3.85; I2 = 96.3%) for refugees compared with the native population, and 1.92 (95% CI, 1.02-3.62; I2 = 97.0%) for nonrefugee migrants compared with the native group. Exclusion of studies that defined refugee status not individually but only by country of origin resulted in an RR of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.12-4.49; I2 = 96.8%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants and an RR of 3.26 (95% CI, 1.87-5.70; I2 = 97.6%) for refugees compared with the native group. In general, the RR of nonaffective psychosis was increased in refugees and nonrefugee migrants compared with the native population.
Refugee experience appeared to be an independent risk factor in developing nonaffective psychosis among refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada. These findings suggest that applying the conclusions to non-Scandinavian countries should include a consideration of the characteristics of the native society and its specific interaction with the refugee population.
这是迄今为止第一项也是最全面的研究,专门针对难民中非情感性精神病的发病率。
评估与原籍人口和非难民移民相比,难民中非情感性精神病的相对风险(RR)。
从 1977 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 3 月 8 日,在 PubMed、PsycINFO 和 Embase 数据库中搜索研究,无语言限制(PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42018106740)。
由多名独立评审员选择在丹麦、瑞典、挪威和加拿大进行的研究。纳入标准为:(1)参与者中有难民史,(2)评估效应大小和分布,(3)调整性别,(4)根据标准化操作性标准定义非情感性精神病,(5)对照者为非难民移民或原籍人口。仅观察种族背景、无明确难民身份定义的研究被排除在外。
遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)和观察性研究荟萃分析(MOOSE)指南提取数据,并评估纳入研究的数据质量和有效性以及偏倚风险。创建了一个随机效应模型来汇总纳入研究的效果大小。
主要结果,在数据收集之前制定,是与非难民人口相比,难民中合并的 RR。
在筛选出的 4358 篇文章中,有 9 项研究(0.2%)涉及丹麦、瑞典、挪威和加拿大的 54 万名难民,纳入分析。与非难民移民相比,非情感性精神病在难民中的 RR 为 1.43(95%CI,1.00-2.05;I2=96.3%)。在限制于低偏倚风险研究的分析中,与非难民移民相比,难民的 RR 为 1.39(95%CI,1.23-1.58;I2=0.0%),与原籍人口相比,RR 为 2.41(95%CI,1.51-3.85;I2=96.3%),与原籍人口相比,RR 为 1.92(95%CI,1.02-3.62;I2=97.0%)。排除仅通过原籍国而不是个别地定义难民身份的研究,与非难民移民相比,难民的 RR 为 2.24(95%CI,1.12-4.49;I2=96.8%),与原籍人口相比,RR 为 3.26(95%CI,1.87-5.70;I2=97.6%)。一般来说,难民和非难民移民中非情感性精神病的 RR 高于原籍人口。
难民经历似乎是丹麦、瑞典、挪威和加拿大难民中非情感性精神病的一个独立危险因素。这些发现表明,将这些结论应用于非斯堪的纳维亚国家时,应考虑到当地社会的特征及其与难民人口的特定相互作用。