|
|
CHAPTER 2
Culture Counts: The Influence of Culture and Society on Mental Health, Mental Illness
Culture of the Patient
The culture of the patient, also known as the consumer of mental health services,
influences many aspects of mental health, mental illness, and patterns
of health care utilization. One important cautionary note, however, is
that general statements about cultural characteristics of a given group
may invite stereotyping of individuals based on their appearance or affiliation.
Because there is usually more diversity within a population than there
is between populations (e.g., in terms of level of acculturation, age,
income, health status, and social class), information in the following
sections should not be treated as stereotypes to be broadly applied to
any individual member of a racial, ethnic, or cultural group.
Symptoms, Presentation, and Meaning
The symptoms of mental disorders are found worldwide. They cluster into discrete
disorders that are real and disabling (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [DHHS], 1999). As noted in Chapter 1, mental disorders are defined
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). Schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder, panic disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, and
other disorders have similar and recognizable symptoms throughout the
world (Weissman et al., 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998). Culture-bound syndromes,
which appear to be distinctive to certain ethnic groups, are the exception
to this general statement. Research has not yet determined whether culture-bound
syndromes are distinct1 from established mental
disorders, are variants of them, or whether both mental disorders
and culture-bound syndromes reflect different ways in which the cultural
and social environment interacts with genes to shape illness (Chapter
1).
One way in which culture affects mental illness is through how patients describe
(or present) their symptoms to their clinicians. There are some
well recognized differences in symptom presentation across cultures. The
previous chapter described ethnic variation in symptoms of somatization,
the expression of distress through one or more physical (somatic) symptoms
(Box 1-3). Asian patients, for example, are more likely to report their
somatic symptoms, such as dizziness, while not reporting their emotional
symptoms. Yet, when questioned further, they do acknowledge having
emotional symptoms (Lin & Cheung, 1999). This finding supports the
view that patients in different cultures tend to selectively express or
present symptoms in culturally acceptable ways (Kleinman, 1977, 1988).
Cultures also vary with respect to the meaning they impart to illness,
their way of making sense of the subjective experience of illness
and distress (Kleinman, 1988). The meaning of an illness refers to deep-seated
attitudes and beliefs a culture holds about whether an illness is
“real” or “imagined,” whether it is of the body
or the mind (or both), whether it warrants sympathy, how much stigma surrounds
it, what might cause it, and what type of person might succumb to it.
Cultural meanings of illness have real consequences in terms of whether
people are motivated to seek treatment, how they cope with their
symptoms, how supportive their families and communities are, where
they seek help (mental health specialist, primary care provider,
clergy, and/or traditional healer), the pathways they take to get services,
and how well they fare in treatment. The consequences can be grave —
extreme distress, disability, and possibly, suicide — when
people with severe mental illness do not receive appropriate treatment.
Causation and Prevalence
Cultural and social factors contribute to the causation of mental illness, yet
that contribution varies by disorder. Mental illness is considered the
product of a complex interaction among biological, psychological, social,
and cultural factors. The role of any one of these major factors
can be stronger or weaker depending on the disorder (DHHS, 1999).
The prevalence of schizophrenia, for example, is similar throughout the world
(about 1 percent of the population), according to the International
Pilot Study on Schizophrenia, which examined over 1,300 people
in 10 countries (World Health Organization [WHO], 1973). International
studies using similarly rigorous research methodology have extended the
WHO’s findings to two other disorders: The lifetime prevalence of
bipolar disorder (0.3–1.5%) and panic disorder (0.4–2.9%)
were shown to be relatively consistent across parts of Asia, Europe, and
North America (Weissman et al., 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998). The global consistency
in symptoms and prevalence of these disorders, combined with results of
family and molecular genetic studies, indicates that they have high heritability
(genetic contribution to the variation of a disease in a population) (National
Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], 1998). In other words, it seems that
culture and societal factors play a more sub-ordinate role in causation
of these disorders.
Cultural and social context weigh more heavily in causation of depression. In
the same international studies cited above, prevalence rates for major
depression varied from 2 to 19 percent across countries (Weissman et al.,
1996). Family and molecular biology studies also indicate less heritability
for major depression than for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia (NIMH,
1998). Taken together, the evidence points to social and cultural factors,
including exposure to poverty and violence, playing a greater role in
the onset of major depression. In this context, it is important
to note that poverty, violence, and other stressful social environments
are not unique to any part of the globe, nor are the symptoms and
manifestations they produce. However, factors often linked to race
or ethnicity, such as socioeconomic status or country of origin
can increase the likelihood of exposure to these types of stressors.
Cultural and social factors have the most direct role in the causation of post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD is a mental disorder caused by exposure to
severe trauma, such as genocide, war combat, torture, or the extreme threat
of death or serious injury (APA, 1994). These traumatic experiences are
associated with the later development of a longstanding pattern of symptoms
accompanied by biological changes (Yehuda, 2000). Traumatic experiences
are particularly common for certain populations, such as U.S. combat
veterans, inner-city residents, and immigrants from countries in turmoil.
Studies described in the chapters on Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans
reveal alarming rates of PTSD in communities with a high degree of pre-immigration
exposure to trauma (Chapters 5 and 6). For example, in some samples, up
to 70 percent of refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos met diagnostic
criteria for PTSD. By contrast, studies of the U.S. population as a whole
find PTSD to have a prevalence of about 4 percent (DHHS, 1999).
Suicide rates vary greatly across countries, as well as across U.S. ethnic sub-groups
(Moscicki, 1995). Suicide rates among males in the United States are highest
for American Indians and Alaska Natives (Kachur et al., 1995). Rates are
lowest for African American women (Kachur et al., 1995). The reasons for
the wide divergence in rates are not well understood, but they are
likely influenced by variations in the social and cultural con-texts
for each subgroup (van Heeringen et al., 2000; Ji et al., 2001).
Even though there are similarities and differences in the distribution of certain
mental disorders across populations, the United States has an aggregate
rate of about 20 percent of adults and children with diagnosable mental
disorders (DHHS, 1999; Table 1-1). As noted in Chapter 1, this aggregate
rate for the population as a whole does not have sufficient representation
from most minority groups to permit comparisons between whites and other
ethnic groups. The rates of mental disorder are not sufficiently studied
in many smaller ethnic groups to permit firm conclusions about overall
prevalence; how-ever, several epidemiological studies of ethnic populations,
supported by the NIMH, are currently in progress (Chapter 7). Until more
definitive findings are available,
this Supplement concludes, on the basis of smaller studies, that
overall prevalence rates for mental disorders in the United States
are similar across minority and majority populations.
As noted in Chapter 1, this general conclusion applies to racial
and ethnic minority populations living in the community, because high-need
subgroups are not well captured in community household surveys.
Family Factors
Many features of family life have a bearing on mental health and mental illness.
Starting with etiology, Chapter 1 highlighted that family factors can
protect against, or contribute to, the risk of developing a mental illness.
For example, supportive families and good sibling relation-ships can protect
against the onset of mental illness. On the other hand, a family environment
marked by severe marital discord, overcrowding, and social disadvantage
can contribute to the onset of mental illness. Conditions such as child
abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse also place children at risk for mental
disorders and suicide (Brown et al., 1999; Dinwiddie et al., 2000).
Family risk and protective factors for mental illness vary across ethnic groups.
But research has not yet reached the point of identifying whether the
variation across ethnic groups is a result of that group’s culture,
its social class and relationship to the broader society, or individual
features of family members.
One of the most developed lines of research on family factors and mental illness
deals with relapse in schizophrenia. The first studies, conducted in Great
Britain, found that people with schizophrenia who returned from hospitalizations
to live with family members who expressed criticism, hostility, or emotional
involvement (called high expressed emotion) were more likely to
relapse than were those who returned to family members who expressed lower
levels of negative emotion (Leff & Vaughn, 1985; Kavanaugh, 1992;
Bebbington & Kuipers, 1994; Lopez & Guarnaccia, 2000). Later studies
extended this line of research to Mexican American samples. These studies
reconceptualized the role of family as a dynamic interaction between patients
and their families, rather than as static family characteristics (Jenkins,
Kleinman, & Good, 1991; Jenkins, 1993). Using this approach, a study
comparing Mexican American and white families found that different types
of interactions predicted relapse. For the Mexican American families,
interactions featuring distance or lack of warmth predicted relapse for
the individual with schizophrenia better than interactions featuring criticism.
For whites, the converse was true (Lopez et al., 1998). This example,
while not necessarily generalizable to other Hispanic groups, suggests
avenues by which other culturally based family differences may be related
to the course of mental illness.
Coping Styles
Culture relates to how people cope with everyday problems and more extreme
types of adversity. Some Asian American groups, for example, tend not
to dwell on upsetting thoughts, thinking that reticence or avoidance is
better than outward expression. They place a higher emphasis on suppression
of affect (Hsu, 1971; Kleinman, 1977), with some tending first to rely
on themselves to cope with distress (Narikiyo & Kameoka, 1992). African
Americans tend to take an active approach in facing personal problems,
rather than avoiding them (Broman, 1996). They are more inclined
than whites to depend on handling distress on their own (Sussman et al.,
1987). They also appear to rely more on spirituality to help them cope
with adversity and symptoms of mental illness (Broman, 1996; Cooper-Patrick
et al., 1997; Neighbors et al., 1998).
Few doubt the importance of culture in fostering different ways of coping,
but research is sparse. One of the few, yet well developed lines of research
on coping styles comes from comparisons of children living in Thailand
versus America. Thailand’s largely Buddhist religion and culture
encourage self-control, emotional restraint, and social inhibition. In
a recent study, Thai children were two times more likely than American
children to report reliance on covert coping methods such as “not
talking back,” than on overt coping methods such as “screaming”
and “running away” (McCarty et al., 1999). Other studies by
these investigators established that different coping styles are
associated with different types and degrees of problem behaviors in children
(Weisz et al., 1997).
The studies noted here suggest that better under-standing of coping styles among
racial and ethnic minorities has implications for the promotion of mental
health, the prevention of mental illness, and the nature and severity
of mental health problems.
Treatment Seeking
It is well documented that racial and ethnic minorities in the United States
are less likely than whites to seek mental health treatment, which largely
accounts for their under-representation in most mental health services
(Sussman et al., 1987; Kessler et al., 1996; Vega et al. 1998; Zhang et
al., 1998). Treatment seeking denotes the pathways taken to reach treatment
and the types of treatments sought (Rogler & Cortes, 1993). The pathways
are the sequence of contacts and their duration once someone (or their
family) recognizes their distress as a health problem.
Research indicates that some minority groups are more likely than whites to delay
seeking treatment until symptoms are more severe (See Chapters 3 &
5). Further, racial and ethnic minorities are less inclined than whites
to seek treatment from mental health specialists (Gallo et al.,
1995; Chun et al., 1996; Zhang et al., 1998). Instead, studies indicate
that minorities turn more often to primary care (Cooper-Patrick et al.,
1999a; see later section on Primary Care). They also turn to informal
sources of care such as clergy, traditional healers, and family
and friends (Neighbors & Jackson, 1984; Peifer et al., 2000). In particular,
American Indians and Alaska Natives often rely on traditional healers,
who frequently work side-by-side with formal providers in tribal
mental health programs (Chapter 4). African Americans often rely on ministers,
who may play various mental health roles as counselor, diagnostician,
or referral agent (Levin, 1986). The extent to which minority groups
rely on informal sources in lieu of, or in addition to, formal mental
health services in primary or specialty care is not well studied.
When they use mental health services, Some African Americans prefer therapists
of the same race or ethnicity. This preference has encouraged the
development of ethnic-specific programs that match patients to therapists
of the same culture or ethnicity (Sue, 1998). Many African Americans also
prefer counseling to drug therapy (Dwight-Johnson et al., 2000).
Their concerns revolve around side effects, effectiveness, and addiction
potential of medications (Cooper-Patrick et al., 1997).
The fundamental question raised by this line of research is: Why are many racial
and ethnic minorities less inclined than whites to seek mental health
treatment? Certainly, the constellation of barriers deterring whites
also operates to various degrees for minorities — cost, fragmentation
of services, and the societal stigma on mental illness (DHHS, 1999). But
there are extra barriers deterring racial and ethnic minorities
such as mistrust and limited English proficiency.
Mistrust
Mistrust was identified by the SGR as a major barrier to the receipt of mental
health treatment by racial and ethnic minorities (DHHS, 1999). Mistrust
is widely accepted as pervasive among minorities, yet there is surprisingly
little empirical research to document it (Cooper-Patrick et al., 1999).
One of the few studies on this topic looked at African Americans and whites
surveyed in theearly 1980s in a national study known as the Epidemiologic
Catchment Area (ECA) study. This study found that African Americans with
major depression were more likely to cite their fears of hospitalization
and of treatment as reasons for not seeking mental health treatment. For
instance, almost half of African Americans, as opposed to 20 percent of
whites, reported being afraid of mental health treatment (Sussman et al.,
1987).
What are the reasons behind the lack of trust? Mistrust of clinicians by minorities
arises, in the broadest sense, from historical persecution and from present-day
struggles with racism and discrimination. It also arises from documented
abuses and perceived mistreatment, both in the past and more recently,
by medical and mental health professionals (Neal-Barnett & Smith,
1997; see later section on “Clinician Bias and Stereotyping”).
A recent survey conducted for the Kaiser Family Foundation (Brown et al.,
1999) found that 12 percent of African Americans and 15 percent of Latinos,
in comparison with 1 percent of whites, felt that a doctor or health
provider judged them unfairly or treated them with disrespect because
of their race or ethnic background. Even stronger ethnic differences were
reported in the Commonwealth Fund Minority Health Survey: It found that
43 percent of African Americans and 28 percent of Latinos, in comparison
with 5 percent of whites, felt that a health care provider treated them
badly because of their race or ethnic background (LaVeist et al., 2000).
Mistrust of mental health professionals is exploited by present day antipsychiatry
groups that target the African American community with incendiary material
about purported abuses and mistreatment (Bell, 1996).
Mistrustful attitudes also may be commonplace among other groups. While insufficiently
studied, mistrust toward health care providers can be inferred from
a group’s attitudes toward government-operated institutions.
Immigrants and refugees from many regions of the world, including Central
and South America and Southeast Asia, feel extreme mistrust of government,
based on atrocities committed in their country of origin and on fear of
deportation by U.S. authorities. Similarly, many American Indians and
Alaska Natives are mistrustful of health care institutions; this
dates back through centuries of legalized discrimination and segregation,
as discussed in Chapter 4.
Stigma
Stigma was portrayed by the SGR as the “most formidable obstacle
to future progress in the arena of mental illness and health”
(DHHS, 1999). It refers to a cluster of negative attitudes and beliefs
that motivate the general public to fear, reject, avoid, and discriminate
against people with mental illness (Corrigan & Penn, 1999).
Stigma is widespread in the United States and other Western nations (Bhugra,
1989; Brockington et al., 1993) and in Asian nations (Ng, 1997). In response
to societal stigma, people with mental problems internalize public attitudes
and become so embarrassed or ashamed that they often conceal symptoms
and fail to seek treatment (Sussman et al., 1987; Wahl, 1999). Stigma
also lowers their access to resources and opportunities, such as housing
and employment, and leads to diminished self-esteem and greater isolation
and hopelessness (Penn & Martin, 1998; Corrigan & Penn, 1999).
Stigma can also be against family members; this damages the consumer’s
self-esteem and family relationships (Wahl & Harman, 1989). In some
Asian cultures, stigma is so extreme that mental illness is thought to
reflect poorly on family line-age and thereby diminishes marriage and
economic prospects for other family members as well (Sue & Morishima,
1982; Ng, 1997).
Stigma is such a major problem that the very topic itself poses a challenge to
research. Researchers have to contend with people’s reluctance to
disclose attitudes often deemed socially unacceptable. How stigma varies
by culture can be studied from two perspectives. One perspective is that
of the targets of stigma, i.e., the people with symptoms: If they
are members of a racial or ethnic minority, are they more likely than
whites to experience stigma? The other perspective is that of the
public in their attitudes toward people with mental illness: Are members
of each racial or ethnic minority group more likely than whites to hold
stigmatizing attitudes toward mental illness? The answers to these cross-cultural
questions are far from definitive, but there are some interesting
clues from research.
Turning first to those who experience symptoms, one of the few cross-cultural
studies questioned Asian Americans living in Los Angeles. The findings
were eye-opening: Only 12 percent of Asians would mention their mental
health problems to a friend or relative (versus 25 percent of whites).
A meager 4 percent of Asians would seek help from a psychiatrist or specialist
(versus 26 per-cent of whites). And only 3 percent of Asians would seek
help from a physician (versus 13 percent of whites). The study concluded
that stigma was pervasive and pronounced for Asian Americans in
Los Angeles (Zhang et al., 1998).
Turning to the question of public attitudes toward mental illness, the largest
and most detailed study of stigma in the United States was performed in
1996 as part of the General Social Survey, a respected, nationally representative
survey being conducted by the National Opinion Research Center since the
1970s. In this study, a representative sample was asked in personal interviews
to respond to different vignettes depicting people with mental illness.
The respondents generally viewed people with mental illness as dangerous
and less competent to handle their own affairs, with their harshest judgments
reserved for people with schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Interestingly,
neither the ethnicity of the respondent, nor the ethnicity of the person
portrayed in the vignette, seemed to influence the degree of stigma (Pescosolido
et al., 1999).
By contrast, another large, nationally representative study found a different
relationship between race, ethnicity, and attitudes towards patients
with mental illness. Asian and Hispanic Americans saw them as more dangerous
than did whites. Although having contact with individuals with mental
illness helped to reduce stigma for whites, it did not for African Americans.
American Indians, on the other hand, held attitudes similar to whites
(Whaley, 1997).
Taken together, these results suggest that minorities hold similar, and in some
cases stronger, stigmatizing attitudes toward mental illness than do whites.
Societal stigma keeps minorities from seeking needed mental health care,
much as it does for whites. Stigma is so potent that it not only affects
the self-esteem of people with mental illness, but also that of family
members. The bottom line is that stigma does deter major segments of the
population, majority and minority alike, from seeking help. It bears
repeating that a majority of all people with diagnosable mental
disorders do not get treatment (DHHS, 1999).
Immigration
Migration, a stressful life event, can influence mental health. Often called
acculturative stress, it occurs during the process of adapting to a new
culture (Berry et al., 1987). Refugees who leave their homelands because
of extreme threat from political forces tend to experience more trauma,
more undesirable change, and less control over the events that define
their exits than do voluntary immigrants (Rumbaut, 1985; Meinhardt et
al., 1986).
The psychological stress associated with immigration tends to be concentrated
in the first three years after arrival in the United States (Vega &
Rumbaut, 1991). According to studies of Southeast Asian refugees, an initial
euphoria often characterizes the first year following migration, followed
by a strong disenchantment and demoralization reaction during the second
year. The third year includes a gradual return to well-being and satisfaction
(Rumbaut, 1985, 1989). This U-shaped curve has been observed in Cubans
and Eastern Europeans (Portes & Rumbaut, 1990). Similarly, Ying (1988)
finds that Chinese immigrants who have been in the United States less
than one year have fewer symptoms of distress than those residing
here for several years. Korean American immigrants have been found to
have the highest levels of depressive symptoms in the one to two
years following immigration; after three years, these symptoms remit
(Hurh & Kim, 1988).
Although immigration can bring stress and subsequent psychological distress,
research results do not suggest that immigration per se results
in higher rates of mental disorders (e.g., Vega et al., 1998). However,
as described in the chapters on Asian Americans and Latinos, the traumas
experienced by adults and children from war-torn countries before and
after immigrating to the United States seem to result in high rates of
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among these populations.
Overall Health Status
The burden of illness in the United States is higher in racial and ethnic minorities
than whites. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently reported
that compared with the majority populations, U.S. minority populations
have shorter overall life expectancies and higher rates of cardiovascular
disease, cancer, infant mortality, birth defects, asthma, diabetes,
stroke, adverse con-sequences of substance abuse, and sexually transmitted
diseases (DHHS, 2000; NIH, 2000). The list of illnesses is overpoweringly
long.
Disparities in health status have led to high-profile research and policy initiatives.
One long-standing policy initiative is Healthy People, a comprehensive
set of national health objectives issued every decade by the Department
of Health and Human Services. The most recent is Healthy People 2010,
which contains both well defined objectives for reducing health disparities
and the means for monitoring progress (DHHS, 2000).
Higher rates of physical (somatic) disorders among racial and ethnic minorities
hold significant implications for mental health. For example, minority
individuals who do not have mental disorders are at higher risk for developing
problems such as depression and anxiety because chronic physical illness
is a risk factor for mental disorders (DHHS, 1999; see also earlier section).
Moreover, individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups who already
have both a mental and a physical disorder (known as comorbidity)
are more likely to have their mental disorder missed or misdiagnosed,
owing to competing demands on primary care providers who are preoccupied
with the treatment of the somatic disorder (Borowsky, et al., 2000; Rost
et al., 2000). Even if their mental disorder is recognized and treated,
people with comorbid disorders are saddled by more drug interactions and
side effects, given their higher usage of medications. Finally, people
with comorbid disorders are much more likely to be unemployed and disabled,
compared with people who have a single disability (Druss et al., 2000).
Thus, poor somatic health takes a toll on mental health. And it is probable that
some of the mental health disparities described in this Supplement are
linked to the poorer somatic health status of racial and ethnic minorities.
The interrelationships between mind and body are inescapably evident.
1 In medicine, each disease or disorder is considered mutally
exclusive from another (WHO, 1992). Each disorder is presumed, but rarely
proven, to have unique pathophysiology (Scadding, 1996).
|