4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

The relation between perceived need for mental health treatment, DSM diagnosis, and quality of life: A Canadian population-based survey

出版社

CANADIAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1177/070674370505000203

关键词

mental health service use; mood; anxiety; substance abuse; phobia; perceived need; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Prevalence estimates of mental disorders were designed to provide an indirect estimate of the need for mental health services in the community. However, recent studies have demonstrated that meeting criteria for a DSM-based disorder does not necessarily equate with need for treatment. The current investigation examined the relation between self-perceived need for mental health treatment and DSM diagnosis, with respect to quality of life (QoL) and suicidal ideation. Methods: Data came from an Ontario population-based sample of 8116 residents (aged 15 to 64 years). The University of Michigan Composite International Diagnostic Interview was used to diagnose mood, anxiety, substance use, and bulimia disorder according to DSM-III-R criteria. We categorized past-year help seeking for emotional symptoms and (or) perceiving a need for treatment without seeking care as self-perceived need for treatment. We used a range of variables to measure QoL: self-perception of mental health status, a validated instrument that measured well-being, and restriction of activities (current, past 30 days, and long-term). Results: Independent of subjects' meeting criteria for a DSM-III-R diagnosis, self-perceived need for treatment was significantly associated with poor QoL (on all measures) and past-year suicidal ideation. Conclusions: Self-perceived need for mental health treatment, in addition to DSM diagnosis, may provide valuable information for estimating the number of people in the population who need mental health services. The relation between self-perceived need for treatment and objective measures of treatment need requires future study.

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