安徽省中小学生心理健康状况调查

目的分析当前安徽省中小学生心理健康状况。方法采用心理健康诊断测验(MHT)对安徽省6088名中小学生进行测查。结果①安徽省中小学生心理健康问题总分阳性检出率为2%,各分量表阳性总检出率为总人数的68.1%,其中学习焦虑因子检出率为57.3%。各项检出率依次排序为:学习焦虑、身体症状、过敏倾向、自责倾向、恐怖倾向、对人焦虑、冲动倾向、孤独倾向。②不同性别、生源、年级的中小学生的心理健康水平差异有统计学意义。③留守儿童的心理健康水平低于非留守儿童,差异有统计学意义。结论安徽省中小学生整体心理健康水平较好,但心理问题还普遍存在,应该给予高度重视。     

汶川震后1年内中学生心理健康状况追踪研究

目的考察震后1年内中学生心理健康状况的时序特征。方法采用症状自评量表,对汶川地震灾区两所中学430名学生,在5.12地震之后第3个月、第5个月、第9个月以及第13个月对其心理健康状况进行调查。结果震区中学生心理健康在第5个月后总体状况呈好转趋势;震后1年内的不同时段,中学生在强迫、抑郁、焦虑几个因子上得分高于常模;恐怖因子得分一直显著高于常模;震后各个时段至少1个因子高于3分的人数保持在10%以上。结论震区中学生心理健康总体状况呈好转趋势,但恐怖因子得分一直高于常模。     

浙江中部地区农村部分小学生心理健康状况

目的了解浙江中部地区农村小学生的心理健康状况，为有针对性地制定该地区农村小学心理健康教育策略提供依据。方法运用周步成等修订的《中小学生心理健康量表》（MHT），采用分层抽样的方法对浙江中部地区245名农村小学生进行调查。结果小学生总体心理健康状况较好，但存在不同程度心理健康问题的学生也占一定比例，毕业班女生为高发人群；主要的心理问题依次为学习焦虑、恐怖倾向、自责倾向；MHT得分性别差异无显著性，但在学习焦虑、自责倾向、过敏倾向、恐怖倾向、总量表分上年级间差异有显著性。结论应加强对毕业班学生的心理辅导和对农村家长教育观念的引导。     

广西玉林市农村高年级小学生心理健康状况调查

目的 了解广西玉林市农村高年级小学生心理健康的现状与存在问题,提出相应的干预策略。方法 采用心理健康诊断测验（MHT）对广西玉林市2 700名农村高年级小学生进行问卷调查,分析农村高年级小学生的心理状况。结果 玉林市农村小学生心理健康问题的检出率为1.80%,不同性别在总体心理健康状况、学习焦虑、对人焦虑、孤独倾向、自责倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、恐怖倾向和冲动倾向上差异显著（均P<0.05）。是否独生子女在对人焦虑、孤独倾向、身体症状和冲动倾向上,差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）;是否为留守儿童在总体心理健康状况、孤独倾向、恐怖倾向和冲动倾向上,差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）;不同年级的小学生在总体心理健康状况、学习焦虑、自责倾向、过敏倾向和身体症状上,差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）;不同照顾者类型的小学生在总体心理健康状况、学习焦虑、恐怖倾向和冲动倾向上,差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。结论 玉林市农村高年级小学生的心理健康状况总体良好,学习焦虑是本次调查发现的首要心理健康问题。未来可从建设心理健康服务体系等方向着手,为心理健康问题的预防与...     

吉安市城乡小学生心理健康状况调查

目的:了解吉安市城乡小学生的心理健康状况,为吉安市小学生心理健康保健提供依据。方法:采用《心理健康诊断测验》(MHT)对1295名小学生进行测查。结果:吉安市小学生心理健康状况总体情况较好,但也存在一些问题,小学生中受各种情绪困扰和适应不良的人数达38.3%,其中过敏倾向、恐怖倾向、冲动倾向有性别差异(P<0.05);对人焦虑、孤独倾向、自责倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、冲动倾向有年级差异(P<0.05);总焦虑分、学习焦虑、对人焦虑、孤独倾向、过敏倾向、恐怖倾向、冲动倾向有非常显著的学校差异(P<0.01)。结论:小学生心理健康状况受成长环境影响较大,社会、学校、家庭要共同关心小学生心理健康。小学生心理健康指导要针对不同情况,有的放矢地开展。     

吉安市农村小学生心理健康状况调查与分析

目的：了解吉安市农村小学生的心理健康状况，为吉安市农村小学生心理健康教育提供依据。方法：采用《心理健康诊断测验》（MHT）对534名农村小学生进行测查，为进行比较研究，同时也测查了332名城市小学生。结果：吉安市农村小学生心理健康状况总体情况较好．但也存在一些问题，农村小学生中受各种情绪困扰和适应不良的人数达38．9％；农村小学生与城市小学生在总焦虑分、学习焦虑、对人焦虑、孤独倾向、过敏倾向、恐怖倾向、冲动倾向有非常显著的差异（P〈0．01），农村小学生焦虑程度明显高于城市小学生；过敏倾向、恐怖倾向、冲动倾向有性别差异（P〈0．05）；对人焦虑、孤独倾向、自责倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、冲动倾向有年级差异（P〈0．05）。结论：小学生心理健康状况受成长环境影响较大，社会、学校、家庭要共同关心小学生心理健康。小学生心理健康辅导要针对不同情况，有的放矢地开展。     

天津市区单亲中小学生心理健康相关因素分析

目的了解天津市区单亲中小学生心理健康状况及其影响因素。方法采用多级分层随机整群抽样方法,抽取天津市1 625名中小学生,采用自编一般情况调查表、心理健康诊断测验(MHT)、父母教养方式评价量表(EMBU)进行调查。结果天津市区中小学生单亲比率为10.8%,和平区最高,为12.85%,七年级学生单亲比率最高,为12.79%;父母文化程度为本科的学生在学习焦虑、对人焦虑、自责倾向、过敏倾向、恐怖倾向方面的得分低于父母为中专的学生,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);单亲中小学生心理健康问题(总分≥65分)检出率为20%;单亲学生的心理健康状况在总分及各个因子得分均高于双亲学生(P<0.05);父亲惩罚严厉、拒绝否认的教养方式与单亲学生MHT的8个因子均呈正相关(P<0.01);母亲过分干涉保护、拒绝否认、惩罚严厉的教养方式与学习焦虑、对人焦虑、孤独倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、恐怖倾向等均呈正相关(P<0.05)。结论天津市单亲中小学生存在较多的心理健康问题。     

北京市某重点中学学生心理健康状况研究及其软件应用

目的：调查北京市某重点中学中学生心理状况。方法：使用中学生心理健康综合测试软件对145名中学生进行测试。结果：学习焦虑、对人焦虑、孤独倾向、自责倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、恐怖倾向、冲动倾向八方面总体水平在正常范围,学生有学习压力,实验班与普通班有差异,自我成绩认定是学习焦虑的重要原因,男生、女生心理状态有差异,学生对心理测试方法有多种需求。结论：某重点中学学生存在学习焦虑,需要应用综合方法做好心理指导,促进中学生心理健康发展。     

会宁县中小学生心理健康现状及影响因素研究

目的 了解甘肃省会宁县中小学生心理健康现状,为开展心理干预工作提供依据。方法 采用心理健康诊断测验量表(MHT)和家庭情况调查问卷对会宁县1 050名中小学生进行了调查。结果 心理健康问题较严重(全量表分在65分以上)的学生检出率为2.3%,各内容量表中学习焦虑检出率(8.50±3.01)最高,为64.46%,孤独倾向检出率(2.67±2.01)最低,为2.65%;女生的学习焦虑、自责倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、恐怖倾向及全量表得分均高于男生,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.01,P<0.05);初中生在学习焦虑、孤独倾向、过敏倾向、身体症状、冲动倾向及全量表得分上高于小学生,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.01,P<0.05)。影响中小学生心理健康总体水平的因素有性别、年级、父母亲的文化程度、父母亲是否到外地工作。结论 会宁县中小学生心理健康总体水平较高,但仍存在心理健康问题的学生,根据影响因素提出针对中小学生心理健康问题的建议。     

农村留守儿童心理健康与应对方式

了解贵州省农村留守儿童的心理健康状况、应对方式及其相互关系,为农村留守儿童心理健康发展提供参考依据.方法 分层整群抽取贵州省定新乡和重新镇四~九年级学生1 569名,采用一般情况调查表和“心理健康诊断测验(MHT)”与“简易应对方式问卷”,以班级为单位进行现场问卷调查.结果 1 569名农村儿童中,留守儿童占34.2%.留守小学生MHT全量表分和学习焦虑、孤独倾向、过敏倾向分量表得分均高于非留守小学生(t值分别为2.254,2.171,2.476,2.099,P值均<0.05);留守初中生MHT全量表分、学习焦虑、恐怖倾向、冲动倾向分量表得分均高于非留守初中生(t值分别为2.666,2.358,3.862,2.076,P值均<0.05).留守小学生对人焦虑检出率较非留守小学生高,留守初中生学习焦虑、恐怖倾向检出率较非留守初中生高(x2值分别为6.131,6.601,6.875,P值均<0.05).留守小学生消极应对方式得分(8.23±3.64)高于非留守小学生得分(7.54±3.68)(t=2.533,P<0.0S).多重线性回归分析结果显示,调整可能的混杂因素后,消极应对方式与该地留守儿童心理健康有关(P<0.05).结论 该地农村留守中小学生的心理健康较非留守中小学生稍差,在学习焦虑、恐怖倾向、对人焦虑等心理问题方面留守中小学生表现较明显.消极应对方式可能是留守儿童心理健康的负性影响因素.     

心理障碍与心理健康

该文首先阐述了心理障碍的概念、界定标准和类别,随后讨论了目前在心理障碍对待中存在的矛盾和困难,以及对此应当如何应对,最后对心理障碍与心理健康的关系进行了分析,其主要表现为两个方面：一是心理障碍到心理健康是一个连续体,大致可分为心理疾病式障碍、心理机能正常式人格健全3个层次;二是心理健康是一种动态过程,而不是某种绝对状态。     

心理障碍与心理健康

该文首先阐述了心理障碍的概念、界定标准和类别,随后讨论了目前在心理障碍对待中存在的矛盾和困难,以及对此应当如何应对,最后对心理障碍与心理健康的关系进行了分析,其主要表现为两个方面:一是心理障碍到心理健康是一个连续体,大致可分为心理疾病式障碍、心理机能正常式人格健全3个层次;二是心理健康是一种动态过程,而不是某种绝对状态。     

Mental Health Disparities

Mental health disparities have received increased attention in the literature in recent years. After considering 165 different health disparity conditions, the Federal Collaborative for Health Disparities Research chose mental health disparity as one of four topics warranting its immediate national research attention. In this essay, we describe the challenges and opportunities encountered in developing a research agenda to address mental health disparities in the United States. Varying definitions of mental health disparity, the heterogeneity of populations facing such disparity, and the power, complexity, and intertwined nature of contributing factors are among the many challenges. We convey an evolving interagency approach to mental health disparities research and guidance for further work in the field.THE LAST 2 DECADES HAVE brought increased attention to the issue of mental health disparities (Figure 1). For example, many rural Americans have less access to mental health services than do other Americans, suicide rates vary with respect to a variety of demographic variables, and persons with the lowest level of socioeconomic status are estimated to be about 2 to 3 times more likely to have a mental disorder than are those with the highest level of such status.¹ The Surgeon General''s 2001 report, Mental Health: Culture, Race and Ethnicity,¹ noted that, with the increasing diversity of our population, it is in the best interests of the nation to make sure that all of our populations are as healthy as they can be. Both the Institute of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have prioritized disparities in mental health on their research agendas, and The President''s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health included elimination of disparities as one of six goals for transforming the mental health system.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1Number of publications on mental health disparities, by year: 1989–2007.Representatives of more than twenty United States government agencies convened in 2006 to promote research whose results would help reduce health disparities and guide effective public health policies. Resources were limited, so this consortium, which came to be known as the Federal Collaborative for Health Disparities Research (FCHDR), had to make difficult prioritizing decisions. After considering 165 different health disparity conditions, FCHDR selected mental health disparity as one of the four topics warranting its most immediate national research attention. The other 3 topics selected were: obesity, comorbidities, and the built environment.FCHDR established a science group to address each of its four priority topics. The Mental Health Science Group included staff from the National Institute of Corrections, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Indian Health Service (IHS), NIH, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Women''s Health, and other components of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).In this essay, we describe some of the challenges and opportunities encountered in developing a research agenda to address mental health disparities in the United States.     

Marketing Mental Health

No abstract available for this article.     

Mental Health of Prisoners: Identifying Barriers to Mental Health Treatment and Medication Continuity

Objectives. We assessed mental health screening and medication continuity in a nationally representative sample of US prisoners.Methods. We obtained data from 18 185 prisoners interviewed in the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. We conducted survey logistic regressions with Stata version 13.Results. About 26% of the inmates were diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point during their lifetime, and a very small proportion (18%) were taking medication for their condition(s) on admission to prison. In prison, more than 50% of those who were medicated for mental health conditions at admission did not receive pharmacotherapy in prison. Inmates with schizophrenia were most likely to receive pharmacotherapy compared with those presenting with less overt conditions (e.g., depression). This lack of treatment continuity is partially attributable to screening procedures that do not result in treatment by a medical professional in prison.Conclusions. A substantial portion of the prison population is not receiving treatment for mental health conditions. This treatment discontinuity has the potential to affect both recidivism and health care costs on release from prison.Mental health disorders among prisoners have consistently exceeded rates of such disorders in the general population, and correctional facilities in the United States are often considered to be the largest provider of mental health services.1–3 Despite court mandates for access to adequate health care in prisons (these mandates are even further limited to “severe” and “serious” mental illness treatment requirements in prison settings), inmate access to health and mental health care has been sporadic.4,5 Treatment decisions often depend on the limited available resources, public support of correctional treatment, and correctional management decision-making.4,5 Some studies report that at least half of male inmates and up to three quarters of female inmates reported symptoms of mental health conditions in the prior year (compared with 9% or fewer in the general population).3,6–8 These rates underscore the importance of access to mental health treatment for inmates, because lack of access to treatment can have important policy implications, particularly when financial resources are limited for correctional intervention and treatment.Individuals with untreated mental health conditions may be at higher risk for correctional rehabilitation treatment failure and future recidivism on release from prison.2,9,10 In fact, Baillargeon et al.10 found that after release from prison, former inmates who received a professional diagnosis of any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, mental health disorder were 70% more likely to return to prison at least once than were those who were not given a diagnosis. Furthermore, among those who have been previously incarcerated, the rates of recidivism are between 50% and 230% higher for persons with mental health conditions than for those without any mental health conditions, regardless of the diagnosis.The limited treatment options in many prison settings are directly reflected in the greater number of disciplinary problems, rule violations, and physical assaults among those who have mental health disorders,11 often compounded by the resulting solitary confinement as punishment for these behaviors.1 Although all prisons are required to provide some level of health care, we know very little about whether mental health treatment is actually available to inmates on a case-by-case basis.3,9 In fact, Wilper et al. found that most prisoners, even those who have chronic medical conditions (such as diabetes or hypertension), had limited access to health care in prison.3 Therefore, we used a nationally representative sample of US prisoners to assess whether all persons with a history of mental health conditions were screened and evaluated by a medical professional for these conditions and whether medication use was continuous from the community setting to the prison setting.Mental health conditions represent a different level of need when compared with physical health needs among prisoners. For instance, tuberculosis transmission is a physical health hazard to all inmates and staff. Therefore, correctional administrators ensure that individuals suspected of having tuberculosis obtain proper assessment and subsequent access to health care. Symptoms inherent to many mental health disorders, however, may be less obvious to prison staff, especially without assessment by trained mental health professionals. In addition, a report on mental health care in prison emphasized the need for screening and treatment of mental health conditions among inmates from both a legal and a humanitarian perspective.12 Specifically, several US Supreme Court decisions have supported the rights of prisoners to receive health care, including mental health care (see Bowring v Godiva, 551 F2d 44 [4th Cir 1977]; Laamon v. Helgemoe, 437 F Supp 269 [DNH 1977]; and Ruiz v Estelle, 503 F Supp 1265 [SD Tex 1980]). To date, however, a great deal of variation remains in screening for and treatment of mental health disorders in prison settings.13,14 The use of pharmacotherapy, in conjunction with counseling and self-help groups, to treat mental health conditions in correctional settings has been largely accepted in the correctional community; however, many medications are expensive and, therefore, not offered widely within institutions.4,12,13,15Several practical issues might explain why an individual in the correctional system would have difficulty receiving (or continuing to receive) pharmacotherapy for mental health conditions. First, psychologists and psychiatrists who may properly diagnose disorders are in short supply,12 and the screening tools that are typically used in prison settings are not diagnostic tests. Instead, the purpose of these tools is to gauge the security risk of a new inmate at the institution.4 Second, the continuously declining correctional budget may limit treatment access to those with only the most serious mental health conditions.5 In an ideal situation in which a licensed professional properly diagnoses inmates, specialized treatment programs (rarely located inside of prison facilities) are available. Unfortunately, the use of these outside treatment programs is limited, because correctional budgets do not have the extensive resources necessary to manage inmates enrolled in off-site treatment or to handle the logistics (such as secure transport) involved.15The incarceration experience itself poses a challenge to mental health treatment. Untreated mental health (and physical health) conditions are known to result in poor adjustment to life in prison.12 Furthermore, crowded living quarters, lack of privacy, increased risk of victimization, and solitary confinement within the institution have been identified as strong correlates for self-harm and adaptation challenges for those with mental health conditions in prison settings.16,17Given the strong relation between mental health and criminal behavior,18 the public health system has a great deal to gain from better mental health treatment among inmates, particularly in reducing the costs associated with high recidivism rates.5,10,19 Therefore, this study extends previous research on prisoner health conducted by Wilper et al.3 by assessing the continuity of pharmacotherapy (e.g., medication used to treat a mental health condition in prison), beyond the prevalence rates of pharmacotherapy in prison. Furthermore, we examined potential explanations for both continuity and discontinuity of treatment in the inmate population. Specifically, this study will contribute to the literature by evaluating 3 specific aims: (1) to assess medication continuity for a mental health condition since admission to prison; (2) to assess the correlates of medication continuity, medical screening, and receipt of examinations by medical personnel; and (3) to assess the degree to which medication continuity is predicted by screening prisoners for mental health conditions at intake to prison.