Pamplin John R, Bates Lisa M
Center for Urban Science and Progress, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, Department of Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jul;281:114085. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114085. Epub 2021 May 29.
The Black-white Depression paradox, the lower prevalence of major depression among non-Hispanic Black (relative to non-Hispanic white) individuals despite their greater exposure to major life stressors, is a phenomenon that remains unexplained. Despite a decade plus of research, there is little clarity as to whether the paradoxical observations are an invalid finding, spuriously produced by selection bias, information bias, or confounding, or are a valid finding, representative of a true racial patterning of depression in the population. Though both artefactual and etiologic mechanisms have been tested, a lack of synthesis of the extant evidence has contributed towards an unclear picture of the validity of the paradox and produced challenges for researchers in determining which proposed mechanisms show promise, which have been debunked, and which require further study. The objective of this critical review is to assess the state of the literature regarding explanations for the Black-white depression paradox by examining some of the more prominent hypothesized explanatory mechanisms that have been proposed and assessing the state of the evidence in support of them. Included mechanisms were selected for their perceived dominance in the literature and the existence of at least one, direct empirical test using DSM major depression as the outcome. This review highlights the very limited evidence in support of any of the extant putative mechanisms, suggesting that investigators should redirect efforts towards identifying novel mechanisms, and/or empirically testing those which show promise but to date have been relatively understudied. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of the evidence for well-accepted social theories and raise questions regarding the use of DSM major depression to assess mental health burden in Black communities.
黑人与白人抑郁症的矛盾现象,即非西班牙裔黑人(相对于非西班牙裔白人)尽管更多地暴露于重大生活压力源,但重度抑郁症的患病率却较低,这一现象仍无法得到解释。尽管经过了十多年的研究,但对于这些矛盾的观察结果究竟是一个无效发现,是由选择偏倚、信息偏倚或混杂因素虚假产生的,还是一个有效发现,代表了人群中抑郁症的真实种族模式,仍几乎没有定论。虽然人为因素和病因机制都已得到检验,但对现有证据缺乏综合分析,导致对这一矛盾现象的有效性认识不清,也给研究人员带来了挑战,难以确定哪些提出的机制有前景,哪些已被推翻,哪些需要进一步研究。这篇批判性综述的目的是通过审视一些较为突出的假设性解释机制,并评估支持这些机制的证据状况,来评估关于黑人与白人抑郁症矛盾现象解释的文献现状。所纳入的机制是因其在文献中的主导地位以及至少存在一项以《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(DSM)中的重度抑郁症为结果的直接实证检验而被选中的。这篇综述强调,支持任何现有假定机制的证据都非常有限,这表明研究人员应将精力重新导向识别新机制,和/或对那些有前景但迄今研究相对较少的机制进行实证检验。我们最后讨论了这些证据对广为接受的社会理论的更广泛影响,并对使用DSM中的重度抑郁症来评估黑人社区的心理健康负担提出了疑问。