Annelies Nap1, Annelies van Loon2, Jaap Peen3, Digna Jf van Schaik4, Aartjan Tf Beekman4, Jack Jm Dekker5. 1. Research Department, Arkin Mental Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands annelies.nap@gmail.com. 2. Research Department, GGZinGeest, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Research Department, Arkin Mental Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Research Department, GGZinGeest, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Psychiatry, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Research Department, Arkin Mental Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The level of acculturation of migrants varies and is associated with variations in mental health. However, this association is complex and may differ among migrant groups. AIM: The aim of this study is to explore the association between acculturation, mental health and treatment effect. METHODS: In a longitudinal cohort study of patients treated in specialized mental health facilities, different dimensions of acculturation (skills, social integration, traditions, norms/values and feelings of loss) were explored for Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the associations between acculturation status and symptom levels, quality of life, care needs and effects of mental health treatment were examined. Data were analyzed with analysis of covariance, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Acculturation status differed among migrant groups. Turkish migrants showed most original culture maintenance (traditions, norms/values), Surinamese migrants showed most participation in Dutch society (skills, social integration), while Moroccan migrants were situated in between. Higher cultural adaptation was associated with less need for care, lower symptom levels and a higher quality of life. Participation significantly predicted lower symptom levels (p < .001) and higher quality of life (p < .001) 6 months after the start of treatment. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that acculturation status is associated with symptom levels, quality of life and perceived need for care of migrants. Moreover, participation in Dutch society appears to be a favorable factor for treatment effect. It is of importance for professionals in clinical practice to be attentive to this.
BACKGROUND: The level of acculturation of migrants varies and is associated with variations in mental health. However, this association is complex and may differ among migrant groups. AIM: The aim of this study is to explore the association between acculturation, mental health and treatment effect. METHODS: In a longitudinal cohort study of patients treated in specialized mental health facilities, different dimensions of acculturation (skills, social integration, traditions, norms/values and feelings of loss) were explored for Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the associations between acculturation status and symptom levels, quality of life, care needs and effects of mental health treatment were examined. Data were analyzed with analysis of covariance, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Acculturation status differed among migrant groups. Turkish migrants showed most original culture maintenance (traditions, norms/values), Surinamese migrants showed most participation in Dutch society (skills, social integration), while Moroccan migrants were situated in between. Higher cultural adaptation was associated with less need for care, lower symptom levels and a higher quality of life. Participation significantly predicted lower symptom levels (p < .001) and higher quality of life (p < .001) 6 months after the start of treatment. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that acculturation status is associated with symptom levels, quality of life and perceived need for care of migrants. Moreover, participation in Dutch society appears to be a favorable factor for treatment effect. It is of importance for professionals in clinical practice to be attentive to this.
Authors: D G M Eijgermans; H Raat; P W Jansen; E Blok; M H J Hillegers; W Jansen Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: I Groenenberg; M R Crone; S van Dijk; J Ben Meftah; B J C Middelkoop; W J J Assendelft; A M Stiggelbout Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2016-04-30
Authors: Ridwanul Amin; Syed Rahman; Thomas E Dorner; Emma Björkenstam; Magnus Helgesson; Marie L Norredam; Marit Sijbrandij; Cansu Alozkan Sever; Ellenor Mittendorfer-Rutz Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Lilian Krist; Christina Dornquast; Thomas Reinhold; Heiko Becher; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Börge Schmidt; Sara Schramm; Katja Icke; Ina Danquah; Stefan N Willich; Thomas Keil; Tilman Brand Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 3.390