相同,但又不同:通过在美国和德国进行的一项跨国调查来理解抑郁症的责任归因

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Anna Wagner , Doreen Reifegerste , Sebastian Scherr
{"title":"相同,但又不同:通过在美国和德国进行的一项跨国调查来理解抑郁症的责任归因","authors":"Anna Wagner ,&nbsp;Doreen Reifegerste ,&nbsp;Sebastian Scherr","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding how the population attributes responsibility for depression is crucial for shaping the treatment of depressed individuals in society and influencing support for health-related policies. International findings suggest that responsibility attributions generally differ between countries and cultures. However, it is unknown whether they also differ between different healthcare systems within individualistic cultures. To address this research gap, we compared different responsibility attributions for depression (individual, genetic, social) in the United States (individual-based healthcare system) and Germany (solidarity-based healthcare system) in a cross-sectional online survey with 2,168 participants. Additionally, we examined factors associated with these attributions in both countries, including the use of health information sources such as alternative and social media, since media use – and the media frames conveyed through it – is linked to responsibility attributions. Results show that social context-attributions were most prevalent in both countries, but significantly more pronounced in Germany. In contrast, individual and genetic responsibility attributions were higher in the U.S. In both samples, the use of alternative media for health information-seeking was positively associated with individual attributions, while depression knowledge was linked to greater social and genetic attributions. Healthism attitudes were positively related to all three types of responsibility attributions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 105445"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The same, but different: Understanding responsibility attributions for depression with a cross-national survey in the United States and Germany\",\"authors\":\"Anna Wagner ,&nbsp;Doreen Reifegerste ,&nbsp;Sebastian Scherr\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Understanding how the population attributes responsibility for depression is crucial for shaping the treatment of depressed individuals in society and influencing support for health-related policies. International findings suggest that responsibility attributions generally differ between countries and cultures. However, it is unknown whether they also differ between different healthcare systems within individualistic cultures. To address this research gap, we compared different responsibility attributions for depression (individual, genetic, social) in the United States (individual-based healthcare system) and Germany (solidarity-based healthcare system) in a cross-sectional online survey with 2,168 participants. Additionally, we examined factors associated with these attributions in both countries, including the use of health information sources such as alternative and social media, since media use – and the media frames conveyed through it – is linked to responsibility attributions. Results show that social context-attributions were most prevalent in both countries, but significantly more pronounced in Germany. In contrast, individual and genetic responsibility attributions were higher in the U.S. In both samples, the use of alternative media for health information-seeking was positively associated with individual attributions, while depression knowledge was linked to greater social and genetic attributions. Healthism attitudes were positively related to all three types of responsibility attributions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105445\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851025002003\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851025002003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

了解人群如何将抑郁症的责任归因到社会中对抑郁症患者的治疗以及影响对健康相关政策的支持是至关重要的。国际上的研究结果表明,责任归因通常因国家和文化而异。然而,在个人主义文化中,不同的医疗保健系统之间是否也存在差异尚不清楚。为了解决这一研究差距,我们在一项有2168名参与者的横断面在线调查中,比较了美国(以个人为基础的医疗保健系统)和德国(以团结为基础的医疗保健系统)对抑郁症的不同责任归因(个人、遗传、社会)。此外,我们研究了这两个国家与这些归因相关的因素,包括使用替代媒体和社交媒体等健康信息来源,因为媒体的使用以及通过它传达的媒体框架与责任归因有关。结果表明,社会情境归因在两国都最为普遍,但在德国更为明显。相比之下,美国的个人和遗传责任归因更高。在两个样本中,使用替代媒体寻求健康信息与个人归因呈正相关,而抑郁症知识与更大的社会和遗传归因相关。健康主义态度与三种责任归因均呈正相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The same, but different: Understanding responsibility attributions for depression with a cross-national survey in the United States and Germany
Understanding how the population attributes responsibility for depression is crucial for shaping the treatment of depressed individuals in society and influencing support for health-related policies. International findings suggest that responsibility attributions generally differ between countries and cultures. However, it is unknown whether they also differ between different healthcare systems within individualistic cultures. To address this research gap, we compared different responsibility attributions for depression (individual, genetic, social) in the United States (individual-based healthcare system) and Germany (solidarity-based healthcare system) in a cross-sectional online survey with 2,168 participants. Additionally, we examined factors associated with these attributions in both countries, including the use of health information sources such as alternative and social media, since media use – and the media frames conveyed through it – is linked to responsibility attributions. Results show that social context-attributions were most prevalent in both countries, but significantly more pronounced in Germany. In contrast, individual and genetic responsibility attributions were higher in the U.S. In both samples, the use of alternative media for health information-seeking was positively associated with individual attributions, while depression knowledge was linked to greater social and genetic attributions. Healthism attitudes were positively related to all three types of responsibility attributions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy
Health Policy 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Policy is intended to be a vehicle for the exploration and discussion of health policy and health system issues and is aimed in particular at enhancing communication between health policy and system researchers, legislators, decision-makers and professionals concerned with developing, implementing, and analysing health policy, health systems and health care reforms, primarily in high-income countries outside the U.S.A.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信