4.3 Article

Migrant farmworker stress: Mental health implications

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 32-39

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00134.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIOSH CDC HHS [R25 OH07611] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: The number of Latinos in rural regions of the United States is increasing. Little is known about factors that undermine the mental health of this segment of the rural population. Purpose: The goal of this study is to determine which stressors inherent in farmwork and the farmworker lifestyle contribute to poor mental health. Methods: An interview containing the Migrant Farmworker Stress Inventory (MFWSI) and 3 mental health scales (the PAI [anxiety], CES-D [depression], and CAGE/4M [alcohol abuse]) was administered to a sample of 125 male migrant farmworkers. Factor analysis differentiated discrete domains of stressors in the MFWSI. Regression models identified associations of the MFWSI stressor domains with mental health outcomes. Findings: Thirty-eight percent of participants had significant levels of stress as determined by the MFWSI. The MFWSI reduced to 5 stressor domains: legality and logistics, social isolation, work conditions, family, and substance abuse by others. Some 18.4% of participants had impairing levels of anxiety, 41.6% met caseness for depression, and 37.6% answered yes to 2 or more questions on the CAGE. Social isolation and working conditions were associated with both anxiety and depressive symptoms. However, social isolation was more strongly associated with anxiety, and working conditions were more strongly linked to depression. Conclusions: Specific categories of stressors (social isolation, working conditions) inherent in farmwork and the farmworker lifestyle are associated with mental health among immigrant farmworkers. Isolating specific categories of stressors helps in designing programs and practice for the prevention and management of mental health disorders in the immigrant, farmworker population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据