The immediate effect of discrimination on mental health: A meta-analytic review of the causal evidence.

IF 4 2区医学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL

ACS Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1037/bul0000419

Christine Emmer, Julia Dorn, Jutta Mata

{"title":"The immediate effect of discrimination on mental health: A meta-analytic review of the causal evidence.","authors":"Christine Emmer, Julia Dorn, Jutta Mata","doi":"10.1037/bul0000419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This meta-analysis synthesizes experimental studies on the immediate effects of discrimination on mental health, exploring the effects of different paradigms and discrimination types on diverse facets of mental health. We analyzed data from a systematic literature search (73 studies; 12,097 participants; 245 effect sizes) for randomized controlled trials with manipulation of discrimination as a predictor and mental health as an outcome using a three-level random-effects model. Experimentally manipulated discrimination led to poorer mental health (g = -0.30), also after controlling for publication year, region, education level, and methodological quality. Moderator analyses revealed stronger effects for pervasive (g = -0.55) compared to single-event manipulations (g = -0.25) and a trend toward weaker effects for samples with nonmarginalized (g = -0.16) compared to marginalized identities (g = -0.34). Gender and age did not moderate the effect. Discrimination had the largest effects on externalizing (g = -0.66) and distress-related outcomes (g = -0.41); heterosexism (g = -0.66), racism (g = -0.32), and sexism (g = -0.30) had the largest effects on mental health. Convenience sampling compromised generalizability to subgroups and the general population, downgrading methodological quality for all included studies. When interpreting the findings, selective samples (mostly young female adults with higher education), often limited ecological validity, and ethical restrictions of lab-induced discrimination need to be considered. These constraints likely led to conservative estimates of the mental health effects of discrimination in this meta-analysis. Future research should investigate more diverse samples, further explain the heterogeneity of findings, and explore protective factors of the effects of discrimination on mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":17,"journal":{"name":"ACS Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000419","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis synthesizes experimental studies on the immediate effects of discrimination on mental health, exploring the effects of different paradigms and discrimination types on diverse facets of mental health. We analyzed data from a systematic literature search (73 studies; 12,097 participants; 245 effect sizes) for randomized controlled trials with manipulation of discrimination as a predictor and mental health as an outcome using a three-level random-effects model. Experimentally manipulated discrimination led to poorer mental health (g = -0.30), also after controlling for publication year, region, education level, and methodological quality. Moderator analyses revealed stronger effects for pervasive (g = -0.55) compared to single-event manipulations (g = -0.25) and a trend toward weaker effects for samples with nonmarginalized (g = -0.16) compared to marginalized identities (g = -0.34). Gender and age did not moderate the effect. Discrimination had the largest effects on externalizing (g = -0.66) and distress-related outcomes (g = -0.41); heterosexism (g = -0.66), racism (g = -0.32), and sexism (g = -0.30) had the largest effects on mental health. Convenience sampling compromised generalizability to subgroups and the general population, downgrading methodological quality for all included studies. When interpreting the findings, selective samples (mostly young female adults with higher education), often limited ecological validity, and ethical restrictions of lab-induced discrimination need to be considered. These constraints likely led to conservative estimates of the mental health effects of discrimination in this meta-analysis. Future research should investigate more diverse samples, further explain the heterogeneity of findings, and explore protective factors of the effects of discrimination on mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

歧视对心理健康的直接影响：对因果证据的元分析回顾。

本荟萃分析综合了有关歧视对心理健康直接影响的实验研究，探讨了不同范例和歧视类型对心理健康不同方面的影响。我们通过系统性文献检索（73 项研究；12,097 名参与者；245 个效应大小），使用三水平随机效应模型分析了以操纵歧视为预测因素、以心理健康为结果的随机对照试验数据。在控制了发表年份、地区、教育水平和方法质量之后，实验操纵的歧视导致了较差的心理健康（g = -0.30）。调节因素分析表明，与单一事件操纵（g = -0.25）相比，普遍性操纵（g = -0.55）的影响更大；与边缘化身份（g = -0.34）相比，非边缘化身份（g = -0.16）样本的影响呈减弱趋势。性别和年龄对这一效应没有调节作用。歧视对外在化（g = -0.66）和痛苦相关结果（g = -0.41）的影响最大；异性恋（g = -0.66）、种族主义（g = -0.32）和性别歧视（g = -0.30）对心理健康的影响最大。方便取样影响了亚群体和普通人群的普遍性，降低了所有纳入研究的方法学质量。在解释研究结果时，需要考虑选择性样本（大多为受过高等教育的年轻女性成年人）、往往有限的生态效度以及实验室歧视的伦理限制。这些限制因素很可能导致本荟萃分析对歧视对心理健康影响的估计偏于保守。未来的研究应调查更多样化的样本，进一步解释研究结果的异质性，并探索歧视对心理健康影响的保护因素。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Infectious Diseases CHEMISTRY, MEDICINALINFECTIOUS DISEASES&nb-INFECTIOUS DISEASES

CiteScore

9.70

自引率

3.80%

发文量

213

期刊介绍： ACS Infectious Diseases will be the first journal to highlight chemistry and its role in this multidisciplinary and collaborative research area. The journal will cover a diverse array of topics including, but not limited to: * Discovery and development of new antimicrobial agents — identified through target- or phenotypic-based approaches as well as compounds that induce synergy with antimicrobials. * Characterization and validation of drug target or pathways — use of single target and genome-wide knockdown and knockouts, biochemical studies, structural biology, new technologies to facilitate characterization and prioritization of potential drug targets. * Mechanism of drug resistance — fundamental research that advances our understanding of resistance; strategies to prevent resistance. * Mechanisms of action — use of genetic, metabolomic, and activity- and affinity-based protein profiling to elucidate the mechanism of action of clinical and experimental antimicrobial agents. * Host-pathogen interactions — tools for studying host-pathogen interactions, cellular biochemistry of hosts and pathogens, and molecular interactions of pathogens with host microbiota. * Small molecule vaccine adjuvants for infectious disease. * Viral and bacterial biochemistry and molecular biology.