4.7 Article

The epidemiology of traumatic event exposure worldwide: results from the World Mental Health Survey Consortium

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 327-343

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291715001981

关键词

Disasters; epidemiology; injury; revictimization; trauma; violence

资金

  1. Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  2. Sao Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey: State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project [03/00204-3]
  3. Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of Common Mental Disorders (EPIBUL): Ministry of Health
  4. National Center for Public Health Protection
  5. Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH): Ministry of Social Protection
  6. Mental Health Study Medellin: Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University)
  7. European Study of the Epidemiology Of Mental Disorders (ESEMED): European Commission [QLG5-1999-01042, SANCO 2004123, EAHC 20081308]
  8. Piedmont Region (Italy)
  9. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain [FIS 00/0028]
  10. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain [SAF 2000-158-CE]
  11. Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP]
  12. GlaxoSmithKline
  13. Israel National Health Survey: Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research
  14. Israel National Health Survey: National Insurance Institute of Israel
  15. WMH Japan Survey from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013]
  16. Lebanese National Mental Health Survey (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.): Lebanese Ministry of Public Health
  17. WHO (Lebanon)
  18. National Institute of Health/Fogarty International Center [R03 TW006481-01]
  19. Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Award for Medical Sciences
  20. AstraZeneca
  21. Eli Lilly
  22. Hikma Pharmaceuticals
  23. Janssen Cilag
  24. Lundbeck
  25. Novartis
  26. Servier
  27. Mexico National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS): National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente [INPRFMDIES 4280]
  28. National Council on Science and Technology [CONACyT-G30544-H]
  29. PAHO
  30. Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS): New Zealand Ministry of Health
  31. Alcohol Advisory Council
  32. Health Research Council
  33. Nigerian Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW): WHO (Geneva)
  34. WHO (Nigeria)
  35. Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria
  36. Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health: Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency
  37. Chinese World Mental Health Survey Initiative: Pfizer Foundation
  38. Shenzhen Mental Health Survey: Shenzhen Bureau of Health
  39. Shenzhen Bureau of Science, Technology, and Information
  40. Peruvian World Mental Health Study: National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru
  41. Polish project Epidemiology of Mental Health and Access to Care - EZOP Poland: Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw, Department of Psychiatry - Medical University in Wroclaw
  42. National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene in Warsaw
  43. Psykiatrist Institut Vinderen Universitet, Oslo
  44. Norwegian Financial Mechanism
  45. European Economic Area Mechanism
  46. Polish Ministry of Health
  47. Portuguese Mental Health Study: Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon
  48. Portuguese Catholic University
  49. Champalimaud Foundation
  50. Gulbenkian Foundation
  51. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)
  52. Ministry of Health
  53. National School of Public Health & Health Services Management
  54. Ministry of Public Health
  55. US National Institute of Mental Health [R01-MH059575]
  56. National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA)
  57. South African Department of Health and the University of Michigan
  58. Medical Research Council (MRC) of South Africa
  59. Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain - Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project: Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejeria de Sanidad y Politica Social)
  60. Fundacion para la Formacion e Investigacion Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia
  61. National Institute of Mental Health [RO1-MH61905]
  62. US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R): NIMH [U01-MH60220]
  63. NIDA
  64. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
  65. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [044708]
  66. John W. Alden Trust
  67. NIMH [K01-MH092526]
  68. FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL CENTER [R03TW006481] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  69. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH093612, R13MH066849, R01MH069864, R01MH070884, K01MH092526, U01MH060220, R01MH103291] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  70. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA016558] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Considerable research has documented that exposure to traumatic events has negative effects on physical and mental health. Much less research has examined the predictors of traumatic event exposure. Increased understanding of risk factors for exposure to traumatic events could be of considerable value in targeting preventive interventions and anticipating service needs. Method. General population surveys in 24 countries with a combined sample of 68 894 adult respondents across six continents assessed exposure to 29 traumatic event types. Differences in prevalence were examined with cross-tabulations. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether traumatic event types clustered into interpretable factors. Survival analysis was carried out to examine associations of sociodemographic characteristics and prior traumatic events with subsequent exposure. Results. Over 70% of respondents reported a traumatic event; 30.5% were exposed to four or more. Five types - witnessing death or serious injury, the unexpected death of a loved one, being mugged, being in a life-threatening automobile accident, and experiencing a life-threatening illness or injury - accounted for over half of all exposures. Exposure varied by country, sociodemographics and history of prior traumatic events. Being married was the most consistent protective factor. Exposure to interpersonal violence had the strongest associations with subsequent traumatic events. Conclusions. Given the near ubiquity of exposure, limited resources may best be dedicated to those that are more likely to be further exposed such as victims of interpersonal violence. Identifying mechanisms that account for the associations of prior interpersonal violence with subsequent trauma is critical to develop interventions to prevent revictimization.

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

4.7
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