Well-Being and Resources of Minors With Refugee Background in Comparison to Minors With Migration or Native Background

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Pia Schmees, Johanna Braig, Hannah Nilles, Denise Kerkhoff, Z. Demir, J. Rueth, A. Lohaus, Heike Eschenbeck
{"title":"Well-Being and Resources of Minors With Refugee Background in Comparison to Minors With Migration or Native Background","authors":"Pia Schmees, Johanna Braig, Hannah Nilles, Denise Kerkhoff, Z. Demir, J. Rueth, A. Lohaus, Heike Eschenbeck","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: Studies on the health of minors with refugee background (RM) often focus on symptoms and risks. In contrast to these deficit-oriented approaches, the present study examined well-being and resources of RM. Aims: The aim was to get an overview of the extent to which RM differ from both minors with migration (MM) as well as native (NM) background regarding well-being and resources. In addition, the study sought to identify resources of RM that are significant for well-being. General personal and social resources, religious identity and practice as well as multicultural resources (bilingualism, ethnic identity) were examined. Method: The study was conducted in Germany with minors aged 8–16 years. RM ( n = 209), MM ( n = 535) and NM ( n = 858) completed questionnaires. Comparative analyses and multiple regression analyses were computed. Results: RM showed lower well-being and fewer social resources than MM and NM. For personal resources, the group differences were less consistent. Personal and social resources predicted the well-being of minors. While multicultural resources were not significant, especially the resources sense of coherence, integration into peer group, and religious identity positively predicted the well-being of RM. Limitations: The group of MM is very heterogeneous. Further studies should differentiate the group of MM more precisely. Conclusion: The differences in well-being among RM, MM and NM can largely be explained by differences in resources. Religious identity is an important available resource for RM. Sense of coherence and integration into peer groups should be given special attention in health promotion for RM.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000099","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract. Background: Studies on the health of minors with refugee background (RM) often focus on symptoms and risks. In contrast to these deficit-oriented approaches, the present study examined well-being and resources of RM. Aims: The aim was to get an overview of the extent to which RM differ from both minors with migration (MM) as well as native (NM) background regarding well-being and resources. In addition, the study sought to identify resources of RM that are significant for well-being. General personal and social resources, religious identity and practice as well as multicultural resources (bilingualism, ethnic identity) were examined. Method: The study was conducted in Germany with minors aged 8–16 years. RM ( n = 209), MM ( n = 535) and NM ( n = 858) completed questionnaires. Comparative analyses and multiple regression analyses were computed. Results: RM showed lower well-being and fewer social resources than MM and NM. For personal resources, the group differences were less consistent. Personal and social resources predicted the well-being of minors. While multicultural resources were not significant, especially the resources sense of coherence, integration into peer group, and religious identity positively predicted the well-being of RM. Limitations: The group of MM is very heterogeneous. Further studies should differentiate the group of MM more precisely. Conclusion: The differences in well-being among RM, MM and NM can largely be explained by differences in resources. Religious identity is an important available resource for RM. Sense of coherence and integration into peer groups should be given special attention in health promotion for RM.
难民背景未成年人与移民或本土背景未成年人的福利与资源比较
摘要背景:对难民背景未成年人健康的研究往往侧重于症状和风险。与这些以赤字为导向的方法相反,本研究考察了RM的幸福感和资源。目的:目的是概述RM与移民(MM)和本地(NM)背景的未成年人在福利和资源方面的差异程度。此外,该研究还试图确定RM对健康有重要意义的资源。一般的个人和社会资源,宗教认同和实践以及多元文化资源(双语,种族认同)进行了检查。方法:研究在德国进行,研究对象为8-16岁的未成年人。RM (n = 209)、MM (n = 535)和NM (n = 858)完成问卷调查。进行比较分析和多元回归分析。结果:RM表现出较低的幸福感和较少的社会资源。在个人资源方面,组间差异不太一致。个人和社会资源预示着未成年人的幸福。多元文化资源不显著,尤其是资源的凝聚力、同伴群体融合和宗教认同正向预测RM的幸福感。局限性:MM组是非常异构的。进一步的研究应更准确地区分MM组。结论:RM、MM和NM的幸福感差异在很大程度上可以用资源差异来解释。宗教认同是RM的重要可利用资源。在促进生殖健康方面,应特别注意连贯性和融入同伴群体的意识。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
×
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