Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders

Literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

Bibliographic Data

ID23388112
AuthorsB A Kohrt (0000-0002-3829-4820, Johns Hopkins University), Andrew Rasmussen (0000-0001-9149-4795, Johns Hopkins University), Bonnie N Kaiser (0000-0003-0742-1302, Johns Hopkins University), E E Haroz (0000-0003-1833-4925, Johns Hopkins University), Sujen Man Maharjan (0000-0002-5220-4553, Johns Hopkins University), Byamah Brian Mutamba (0000-0002-9430-443X, Johns Hopkins University), Joop De Jong (0000-0002-7652-7509, Johns Hopkins University), J T de Jong, Devon E Hinton (Johns Hopkins University)
Year2014
Volume43
Issue2
Pages365-406
Publication date2014-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0300-5771 • E-ISSN: 1464-3685
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/ije/dyt227
PMID24366490
PMCIDPMC3997373
OpenAlexW2143077576
LanguageEN
Citations received116
References cited120

BACKGROUND: Burgeoning global mental health endeavors have renewed debates about cultural applicability of psychiatric categories. This study's goal is to review strengths and limitations of literature comparing psychiatric categories with cultural concepts of distress (CCD) such as cultural syndromes, culture-bound syndromes, and idioms of distress. METHODS: The Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR) was adapted based on cultural psychiatry principles to develop a Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology version (SAQOR-CPE), which was used to rate quality of quantitative studies comparing CCD and psychiatric categories. A meta-analysis was performed for each psychiatric category. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria, with 18 782 unique participants. Primary objectives of the studies included comparing CCD and psychiatric disorders (51%), assessing risk factors for CCD (18%) and instrument validation (16%). Only 27% of studies met SAQOR-CPE criteria for medium quality, with the remainder low or very low quality. Only 29% of studies employed representative samples, 53% used validated outcome measures, 44% included function assessments and 44% controlled for confounding. Meta-analyses for anxiety, depression, PTSD and somatization revealed high heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%). Only general psychological distress had low heterogeneity (I(2) = 8%) with a summary effect odds ratio of 5.39 (95% CI 4.71-6.17). Associations between CCD and psychiatric disorders were influenced by methodological issues, such as validation designs (β = 16.27, 95%CI 12.75-19.79) and use of CCD multi-item checklists (β = 6.10, 95%CI 1.89-10.31). Higher quality studies demonstrated weaker associations of CCD and psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Cultural concepts of distress are not inherently unamenable to epidemiological study. However, poor study quality impedes conceptual advancement and service application. With improved study design and reporting using guidelines such as the SAQOR-CPE, CCD research can enhance detection of mental health problems, reduce cultural biases in diagnostic criteria and increase cultural salience of intervention trial outcomes.

Anxiety · Confounding · Depression (economics) · Distress · Mental health · Observational study · Odds ratio · Psychiatric epidemiology · Psychiatry · Somatization · Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology · Clinical Psychology · Cultural Competency in Health Care · Epidemiology · Medicine · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Migration, Health and Trauma · Psychology