Sex differences in minor psychiatric morbidity.

R Jenkins
{"title":"Sex differences in minor psychiatric morbidity.","authors":"R Jenkins","doi":"10.1017/s0264180100001788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This monograph is concerned with some epidemiological observations of minor psychiatric morbidity. Differences in rates of specific disorders have historically formed a crucial part of epidemiological enquiry. Sex differences in the prevalence of minor affective disorders have been demonstrated in studies of populations in treatment and in community populations, and have been variously ascribed to constitutional or environmental factors. A review of the literature exposes the methodological problems of measurement and study design, and the conflicting nature of the findings. Efforts have recently concentrated on establishing the social factors important in the aetiology of minor affective disorder without adequate exclusion of constitutional factors. The importance of life events, chronic social stress and inadequate social supports in the aetiology of minor affective disorder has been demonstrated, but the variance explained by such factors is small, reinforcing the view that constitutional factors of some kind are likely to be of importance. The evidence for a genetic contribution to minor affective disorder is tenuous, but there is circumstantial evidence that changes in gonadal hormones are linked to mood changes in women. Until further evidence is available this must remain a powerful possibility in the genesis of sex differences in minor affective disorder. This investigation used epidemiological methods to assess whether there is a sex difference in the constitutional vulnerability of the male and female phenotype to minor psychiatric morbidity. In order to minimize the effects of environment and of sex roles and stereotypes as far as possible, a sample of relatively homogeneous employed men and women (drawn from a population of executive officers in the Home Office) was studied. The data obtained from this population of men and women of similar age, education, occupation and social environment were compatible with the null hypothesis that there is no sex difference in the prevalence of minor psychiatric morbidity, or its outcome in such a homogeneous group. However, women did report significantly more somatic symptoms than men. The second hypothesis, that there is a substantial sex difference in the self-perception of illness, illness behaviour and sickness absence in individuals with minor psychiatric morbidity among a homogeneous group of men and women of similar age, education and occupation, and subject to similar levels of social stress and support, received only partial support from the findings of the study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":77338,"journal":{"name":"Psychological medicine. Monograph supplement","volume":"7 ","pages":"1-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0264180100001788","citationCount":"128","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological medicine. Monograph supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0264180100001788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 128

Abstract

This monograph is concerned with some epidemiological observations of minor psychiatric morbidity. Differences in rates of specific disorders have historically formed a crucial part of epidemiological enquiry. Sex differences in the prevalence of minor affective disorders have been demonstrated in studies of populations in treatment and in community populations, and have been variously ascribed to constitutional or environmental factors. A review of the literature exposes the methodological problems of measurement and study design, and the conflicting nature of the findings. Efforts have recently concentrated on establishing the social factors important in the aetiology of minor affective disorder without adequate exclusion of constitutional factors. The importance of life events, chronic social stress and inadequate social supports in the aetiology of minor affective disorder has been demonstrated, but the variance explained by such factors is small, reinforcing the view that constitutional factors of some kind are likely to be of importance. The evidence for a genetic contribution to minor affective disorder is tenuous, but there is circumstantial evidence that changes in gonadal hormones are linked to mood changes in women. Until further evidence is available this must remain a powerful possibility in the genesis of sex differences in minor affective disorder. This investigation used epidemiological methods to assess whether there is a sex difference in the constitutional vulnerability of the male and female phenotype to minor psychiatric morbidity. In order to minimize the effects of environment and of sex roles and stereotypes as far as possible, a sample of relatively homogeneous employed men and women (drawn from a population of executive officers in the Home Office) was studied. The data obtained from this population of men and women of similar age, education, occupation and social environment were compatible with the null hypothesis that there is no sex difference in the prevalence of minor psychiatric morbidity, or its outcome in such a homogeneous group. However, women did report significantly more somatic symptoms than men. The second hypothesis, that there is a substantial sex difference in the self-perception of illness, illness behaviour and sickness absence in individuals with minor psychiatric morbidity among a homogeneous group of men and women of similar age, education and occupation, and subject to similar levels of social stress and support, received only partial support from the findings of the study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

轻微精神病发病率的性别差异。
本专著是关于一些轻微精神疾病的流行病学观察。特定疾病发病率的差异历来是流行病学调查的重要组成部分。在对接受治疗的人群和社区人群进行的研究中,已经证明了轻微情感障碍患病率的性别差异,并将其不同地归因于体质或环境因素。对文献的回顾揭示了测量和研究设计的方法学问题,以及研究结果的冲突性质。最近的努力集中在确定在轻微情感障碍病因学中重要的社会因素,而没有充分排除体质因素。生活事件、长期社会压力和社会支持不足在轻微情感障碍病因学中的重要性已经得到证明,但这些因素解释的差异很小,这加强了某种体质因素可能很重要的观点。基因对轻微情感障碍的影响的证据是脆弱的,但有间接证据表明,性腺激素的变化与女性的情绪变化有关。在得到进一步的证据之前,这在轻微情感障碍的性别差异的起源上仍然是一个很大的可能性。本研究采用流行病学方法评估男性和女性表型对轻微精神疾病的体质易感性是否存在性别差异。为了尽可能减少环境以及性别角色和陈规定型观念的影响,研究了相对同质的就业男女样本(从内政部的行政官员中抽取)。从年龄、教育程度、职业和社会环境相似的男性和女性人群中获得的数据符合零假设,即在这样一个同质群体中,轻微精神疾病的患病率或其结果没有性别差异。然而,女性确实报告了比男性更多的躯体症状。第二种假设认为,在年龄、教育程度和职业相似、社会压力和支持水平相似的同质男性和女性群体中,患有轻微精神疾病的个体在疾病的自我认知、疾病行为和疾病缺席方面存在实质性的性别差异,该假设仅从研究结果中得到部分支持。(摘要删节为400字)
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信