4.2 Article

Does social capital protect mental health among migrants in Sweden?

期刊

HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 644-652

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dav048

关键词

mental health; social capital; social determinants; protective health factors

资金

  1. European Refugee Fund [51-2008-42815]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poor mental health is common among migrants. This has been explained by migration-related and socio-economic factors. Weak social capital has also been related to poor mental health. Few studies have explored factors that protect mental health of migrants in the post-migration phase. Such knowledge could be useful for health promotion purposes. Therefore, this study aimed to analyse associations between financial difficulties, housing problems and experience of discrimination and poor mental health; and to detect possible effect modification by social capital, among recently settled Iraqi migrants in Sweden. A postal questionnaire in Arabic was sent to recently settled Iraqi citizens. The response rate was 51% (n = 617). Mental health was measured by the GHQ-12 instrument and social capital was defined as social participation and trust in others. Data were analysed by means of logistic regression. Poor mental health was associated with experience of discrimination (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.73-4.79), housing problems (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.84-4.22), and financial difficulties (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.44-3.19), after adjustments. Trust in others seemed to have a protective effect for mental health when exposed to these factors. Social participation had a protective effect when exposed to experience of discrimination. Social determinants and social capital in the host country play important roles in the mental health of migrants. Social capital modifies the effect of risk factors and might be a fruitful way to promote resilience to factors harmful to mental health among migrants, but must be combined with policy efforts to reduce social inequities.

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