4.2 Article

Traumatic Experiences and Mental Health of North Korean Refugees in South Korea

期刊

PSYCHIATRY INVESTIGATION
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 213-220

出版社

KOREAN NEUROPSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.4306/pi.2008.5.4.213

关键词

North Korean refugee; North Korean defector; Traumatic experience; Mental health; Personality Assessment Inventory

资金

  1. Ministry of Unification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This Study was conducted at Hanawon-a government sponsored educational facility for the settlement of North Korean refugees during their initial phase in South Korea-in 2004 to explore their mental health status and traumatic experiences in North Korea and during their escape period. Methods A survey was conducted in November 2004 with 62 North Korean refugees at Hanawon, and the Trauma Checklist was used to measure their traumatic experiences. To measure their psychological-mental health status, the Personality Assessment Inventory was administered. Results In comparison with the traumatic experiences of the North Korean refugees found in the study conducted in 2001 at Hanawon using the same methods, the current study showed a relatively lower frequency of traumatic experiences among the participants. The Personality Assessment Inventory results revealed that the study participants scored higher than average South Koreans in all clinical scales. Particularly, their mania (62.51) and schizophrenia (61.75) scores were above 60, a clinically meaningful score. In the gender comparison, the males exhibited meaningfully higher levels of alcohol problem, non-support, and warmth scale scores. Conclusion Compared to the 2001 study, the overall traumatic experiences among North Korean refugees participated in this study. But continous support is necessary for their successful adaptation to South Korean Society have declined. The North Korean refugees at Hanawon experienced difficulties maintaining their mental health and the men in particular requested more intensive care and support for this Purpose.

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

4.2
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