4.4 Review

Current evidence on urbanicity and the impact of neighbourhoods on anxiety and stress-related disorders

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 248-253

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000496

关键词

anxiety; neighbourhood; posttraumatic stress disorder; urbanization

资金

  1. South African Research Chair (SARCHI) in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
  2. National Research Foundation, South Africa
  3. Department of Science and Technology
  4. South African Research Chair Initiative in Post-Traumatic stress disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review To synthesize recent knowledge on the association of urbanization (and neighbourhood factors) and anxiety and stress-related disorders. Recent findings The quality of urban neighbourhoods and neighbourhood factors - physical (e.g. green space), social (e.g. social cohesion) and biological (e.g. stress response) factors - are directly linked to the presence and severity of anxiety disorders, although data on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are pauce. Preliminary data indicate that architectural and space design elements in PTSD can either increase anxiety and lead to trauma triggers or relieve symptoms and reinforce safety. In addition, there is emerging evidence that being raised in urban environments with a wide range of microbial exposure dampens the immune response to psychosocial stressors. Summary Evidence points to a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders and PTSD in urban environments. Current research is focused on the role of neighbourhood factors in prevention and treatment. Few studies have assessed comprehensive treatment models in urban populations and the potential moderating role of these factors on treatment outcomes. Several lines of inquiry are starting to address how urban living impacts on biological stress regulation pathways. As urbanization continues, improved understanding of urban mental health is central to informing mental health promotion policies.

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

4.4
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