Search

Background: Clinicians increasingly serve youths from societal/cultural backgrounds different from their own. This raises questions about how to interpret what such youths report. Rescorla et al. (2019, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 1107) found that much more variance in 72,493 parents’ ratings of their offspring’s mental health problems was accounted for by individual differences than by societal or cultural differences. Although parents’ reports are essential for clinical assessment of their offspring, they reflect parents’ perceptions of the offspring. Consequently, clinical assessment also requires self-reports from the offspring themselves. To test effects of individual differences, society, and culture on youths’ self-ratings of their problems and strengths, we analyzed Youth Self-Report (YSR) scores for 39,849 11–17 year olds in 38 societies. Methods: Indigenous researchers obtained YSR self-ratings from population samples of youths in 38 societies representing 10 culture cluster identified in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study. Hierarchical linear modeling of scores on 17 problem scales and one strengths scale estimated the percent of variance accounted for by individual differences (including measurement error), society, and culture cluster. ANOVAs tested age and gender effects. Results: Averaged across the 17 problem scales, individual differences accounted for 92.5% of variance, societal differences 6.0%, and cultural differences 1.5%. For strengths, individual differences accounted for 83.4% of variance, societal differences 10.1%, and cultural differences 6.5%. Age and gender had very small effects. Conclusions: Like parents’ ratings, youths’ self-ratings of problems were affected much more by individual differences than societal/cultural differences. Most variance in self-rated strengths also reflected individual differences, but societal/cultural effects were larger than for problems, suggesting greater influence of social desirability. The clinical significance of individual differences in youths’ self-reports should thus not be minimized by societal/cultural differences, which—while important—can be taken into account with appropriate norms, as can gender and age differences.

POLICY POINTS: In low‐income communities in the South Bronx and Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican youth are exposed to many of the same risk and protective factors for developing depression, anxiety, or psychological distress; yet it is unclear how the ethnic minority context of the South Bronx and ethnic majority context of Puerto Rico influence risk. Results from our quasi‐experimental, longitudinal study demonstrate the importance of addressing social factors (parent‐child relationships, youth peer relationships) for youth living in the majority context, and neighborhood and cultural factors (residential mobility, perceived discrimination, perceived social position in the neighborhood) for youth living in the minority context. Our findings support the need for tailoring programs specific to the needs of youth who reside in an ethnic majority or a minority context, since some of the risk factors might operate differently depending on context. Housing and neighborhood environment policies that address discrimination and eliminate structural inequities for ethnic minority groups may protect against the harm of minoritization on young people's mental health. CONTEXT: Puerto Rican youth growing up in low‐income communities in the South Bronx and Puerto Rico are exposed to many of the same risk factors for major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and psychological distress. One potentially powerful factor differs: Puerto Ricans have been socially marginalized as an ethnic minority group in the South Bronx, but are the ethnic majority of the population in Puerto Rico. A growing body of literature demonstrates the influence of neighborhood, cultural, and social factors and parental psychopathology in the development of mental health problems. An important unanswered question is whether these risk and protective factors have the same impact for youth raised as members of an ethnic majority versus minority group. METHODS: Using a population‐based cohort study, with four waves of assessment from early childhood into young adulthood, we investigated whether ethnic minority context alters risk and protective factors for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. Our longitudinal data set includes 2,491 young children at baseline (82.8% retained at wave 4). Using a quasi‐experimental design, we examine how ethnic minority context can alter the development of mental health disorders as Latinx children transition to late adolescence and young adulthood. FINDINGS: Some risk and protective factors operated differently across minority and majority contexts. Higher discrimination and social position were more powerful risk and protective factors, respectively, in the minority context, whereas positive peer relationships mattered more in the majority context. Children of mothers with depression were significantly more likely to develop anxiety in late adolescence and young adulthood in the majority context (60.0%) compared to the minority context (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Preventing depression and anxiety disorders in Latinx young adults may require targeting different childhood factors depending on whether they reside within the ethnic majority or minority context. People in the ethnic minority context may benefit more from policies aimed at reducing discrimination and improving economic opportunity, while people in the majority context may benefit more from opportunities for strengthening family and peer relationships.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) may sensitize individuals to view situations in adulthood as more stressful, which may contribute to poor health outcomes. In populations facing disadvantage, ACEs may lead to the accumulation of stressors (stress proliferation or mediation hypothesis) throughout the life course. ACEs could also heighten perceived stress later in life due to its enduring impact (stress sensitization or effect modification hypothesis).We examine the associations between ACEs and perceived stress in early adulthood, considering concurrent life stressors, in a longitudinal cohort of Puerto Rican youth exposed to a high degree of disadvantage.A community-based sample of 1626 Puerto Rican children living in disadvantaged contexts was followed longitudinally in the Boricua Youth Study from 2000 to 2017.ACEs were measured prospectively during childhood (18 yrs), and life stressors and past year perceived stress were measured in early adulthood (EA; mean age = 23.4, sd 2.22). Causal mediation analysis tested ACEs' effects on EA perceived stress indirectly through life stressors including potential effect modification.ACEs influenced perceived stress in EA (standardized total effect = 0.13, p .001) with 35% mediated by increased exposure to life stressors in EA due to ACEs. There was no evidence of increased sensitization to EA life stressors among those with higher ACEs exposure.ACEs contribute to perceived stress in EA, albeit with small effect, partially through accumulating effects of ongoing stressors, supporting the stress proliferation hypothesis. Policies aimed at reducing exposure to adversity from childhood to EA are needed to reduce the experience of ACEs and negative sequelae.

BACKGROUND: Several recent studies of child outpatient mental health service use in the US have shown that having private insurance has no effect on the propensity to use services. Some studies also find that public coverage has no beneficial effect relative to no insurance. AIMS: This study explores several potential explanations, including inadequate measurement of mental health status, bandwagon effects, unobservable heterogeneity and public sector substitution for private services, for the lack of an effect of private insurance on service use. METHODS: We use secondary analysis of data from the three mainland US sites of NIMH's 1992 field trial of the Cooperative Agreement for Methodological Research for Multi-Site Surveys of Mental Disorders in Child and Adolescent Populations (MECA) Study. We examine whether or not a subject used any mental health service, school-based mental health services or outpatient mental health services, and the number of outpatient visits among users. We also examine use of general medical services as a check on our results. We conduct regression analysis; instrumental variables analysis, using instruments based on employment and parental history of mental health problems to identify insurance choice, and bivariate probit analysis to examine multiservice use. RESULTS: We find evidence that children with private health insurance have fewer observable (measured) mental health problems. They also appear to have a lower unobservable (latent) propensity to use mental health services than do children without coverage and those with Medicaid coverage. Unobserved differences in mental health status that relate to insurance choice are found to contribute to the absence of a positive effect for private insurance relative to no coverage in service use regressions. We find no evidence to suggest that differences in attitudes or differences in service availability in children's census tracts of residence explain the non-effect of insurance. Finally, we find that the lack of a difference is not a consequence of substitution of school-based for office-based services. School-based and office-based specialty mental health services are complements rather than substitutes. School-based services are used by the same children who use office-based services, even after controlling for mental health status. DISCUSSION: Our results are consistent with at least two explanations. First, limits on coverage under private insurance may discourage families who anticipate a need for child mental health services from purchasing such insurance. Second, publicly funded services may be readily available substitutes for private services, so that lack of insurance is not a barrier to adequate care. Despite the richness of data in the MECA dataset, cross-sectional data based on epidemiological surveys do not appear to be sufficient to fully understand the surprising result that insurance does not enable access to care. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH: Limits on coverage under private mental health insurance combined with a relatively extensive system of public mental health coverage have apparently generated a situation where there is no observed advantage to the marginal family of obtaining private mental health insurance coverage. Further research using longitudinal data is needed to better understand the nature of selection in the child mental health insurance market. Further research using better measures of the nature of treatment provided in different settings is needed to better understand how the private and public mental health systems operate.