Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in Distress and Utilization of Mental Health Services between 2005 and 2018: a Potential Trend?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Psychiatric Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined possible differences in self-reported psychological distress and need of treatment in two samples of well-educated adults, which were obtained from two larger studies that were conducted separately in 2005 and 2018. Psychological distress and need for treatment were reported using the Langner Symptom Survey, a psychometrically robust measure of nonspecific distress that provides validated cutoff scores for those in need of receiving mental healthcare services. Treatment utilization was examined through self-report in which respondents indicated whether they had never received treatment, previously received treatment, or were currently receiving treatment. Results suggested that a larger percentage of respondents from the 2018 sample reported current counseling (11.8%) compared to the 2005 sample (4.0%), and they were almost twice as likely to be classified as distressed and in need for treatment than their 2005 counterparts (51.9% compared to 33.2% in 2005; odds ratio = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.59–2.97). Implications for these findings are discussed at length.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Préville M, Potvin L, Boyer R. The structure of psychological distress. Psychol Rep. 1995;77(1):275–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bratter JL, Eschbach K. Race/ethnic differences in nonspecific psychological distress: evidence from the National Health Interview Survey. Soc Sci Q. 2005;86(3):620–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McVeigh KH, Galea S, Thorpe LE, Maulsby C, Henning K, Sederer LI. The epidemiology of nonspecific psychological distress in New York City, 2002 and 2003. J Urban Health. 2006;83(3):394–405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews G, Slade T. Interpreting scores on the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10). Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25(6):494–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Langner T. A twenty-two item screening score of psychiatric symptoms indicating impairment. J Health Hum Behav. 1962;3:269–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Leaf P, Bruce M, Tischler G, et al. Factors affecting the utilization of specialty and general medical mental health services. Med Care. 1988:9–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Regier D, Myers J, Kramer M, et al. The NIMH epidemiologic catchment area program: historical context, major objectives, and study population characteristics. Arch Gen Psychiatr. 1984;41(10):934–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacobi F, Wittchen HU, Hölting C, Höfler M, Pfister H, Müller N, et al. Prevalence, co-morbidity and correlates of mental disorders in the general population: results from the German health interview and examination survey (GHS). Psychol Med. 2004;34(4):597–611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Karlin BE, Norris MP. Public mental health care utilization by older adults. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2006;33(6):730–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Klerman GL. Diagnosis of psychiatric disorders in epidemiologic field studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;42(7):723–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang P, Berglund P, Kessler R. Patterns and correlates of contacting clergy for mental disorders in the United States. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(2):647–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mojtabai R, Jorm A. Trends in psychological distress, depressive episodes and mental health treatment-seeking in the United States: 2001–2012. J Affect Disord. 2015;174:556–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gurin G, Veroff J, Feld S. Americans view their mental health: a nationwide interview survey. Oxford: Basic Books; 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Veroff J, Kulka R, Douvan E. Mental health in America: patterns of help-seeking from, 1957 to 1976: patterns of help-seeking from 1957 to 1976: Basic Books; 1981.

  15. Howard KI, Moras K, Brill PL, Martinovich Z, Lutz W. Evaluation of psychotherapy: efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. Am Psychol. 1996;51(10):1059–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Inguglia C, Ingoglia S, Liga F, et al. Autonomy and relatedness in adolescence and emerging adulthood: relationships with parental support and psychological distress. J Adult Dev. 2015;22(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lace J, Haeberlein K, Handal P. Multidimensionality of the Langner symptom survey and replication of a cutoff score in emerging adults. Psychol Rep. 2019;122(1):340–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arnett J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. Am Psychol. 2000;55(5):469–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bayram N, Bilgel N. The prevalence and socio-demographic correlations of depression, anxiety and stress among a group of university students. Social Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008;43(8):667–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buhrmester M, Talaifar S, Gosling S. An evaluation of Amazon’s mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13(2):149–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sprouse J. A validation of Amazon mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(1):155–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Orpana H, Lemyre L, Gravel R. Income and psychological distress: the role of the social environment. Health Rep. 2009;20(1):21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dooley D, Catalano R. Economic, life, and disorder changes: time-series analyses. Am J Community Psychol. 1979;7(4):381–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gove W, Clancy K. Response bias, sex differences, and mental illness: a reply. Am J Sociol. 1976;81(6):1463–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Handal P, Peri A, Pashak T. Calibration of the Langner symptom survey for the college population. Curr Psychol. 2015;34(2):389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lace J, Haeberlein K, Handal P. Five-factor structure of the spiritual transcendence scale and its relationship with clinical psychological distress in emerging adults. Religions. 2017;8(10):230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lace J, Handal P. Psychometric properties of the daily spiritual experiences scale: support for a two-factor solution, concurrent validity, and its relationship with clinical psychological distress in university students. Religions. 2017;8(7):123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ross K, Handal P, Clark E, et al. The relationship between religion and religious coping: religious coping as a moderator between religion and adjustment. J Relig Health. 2009;8(4):454–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cochrane R. A comparative evaluation of the symptom rating test and the Langner 22- item index for use in epidemiological surveys. Psychol Med. 1980;10(1):115–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson DR, Meile RL. Does dimensionality bias in langner's 22-item index affect the validity of social status comparisons? An empirical investigation Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1981:415–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Manis JG, Brawer MJ, Hunt CL, Kercher LC. Validating a mental health scale. Am Sociol Rev. 1963;28(1):108–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shader RI, Ebert MH, Harmatz JS. Langner's psychiatric impairment scale: a short screening device. Am J Psychiatr. 1971;128(5):596–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Handal P, Lace J. Differential effects of family structure on religion and spirituality of emerging adult males and females. J Relig Health. 2017;56(4):1361–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Handal P, Gist D, Gilner F, et al. Preliminary validity for the Langner symptom survey and the brief symptom inventory as mass-screening instruments for adolescent adjustment. J Child Clinical Psychol. 1993;22(3):382–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim H. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Entod. 2013;38(1):52–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sharpe D. Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment Res Evaluation. 2015;201:20.

  37. Weiss M, Ramakrishna J, Somma D. Health-related stigma: rethinking concepts and interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11(3):277–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Barling P, Handal P. Incidence of utilization of public mental health facilities as a function of short-term economic decline. Am J Community Psychol. 1980;8(1):31–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Kristen Haeberlein, Luke Evans, Britanie Champaigne & Paul J. Handal

Authors
  1. Kristen Haeberlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Britanie Champaigne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul J. Handal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristen Haeberlein.

Ethics declarations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of Saint Louis University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haeberlein, K., Evans, L., Champaigne, B. et al. Differences in Distress and Utilization of Mental Health Services between 2005 and 2018: a Potential Trend?. Psychiatr Q 91, 11–19 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-019-09692-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-019-09692-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation