RESUMO
Objective The aim of the study was to examine real differences in the use of psychotherapy in the New Federal States during the GDR era and today. In addition, differences according to the willingness seeking psychotherapy as well as barriers in opinions and contact to the mentally ill between people from the New Federal States, the Old Federal States and people who moved from the New Federal States to the Old Federal States (internal migrants) should be recorded, taking into account generational effects (experience of the Cold War - birth before / after January 1st, 1980). Methods To investigate these questions, the data from a representative survey in the New Federal States of N=2729 people as well as the data from a second online based survey of people from the New and Old Federal States as well as internal migrants with a total of N=4789 participants were evaluated.Results There was a prevalence of 1% for the use of psychotherapy during the GDR era. Overall, the prevalence of therapy experiences among people who experienced the GDR and were born before January 1st in 1980 was almost 13%. They also reported greater willingness seeking help for mental suffering since the end of the Cold War. The prevalence among younger people was about 12%. In the second survey, there were significant differences, among the older respondents. East Germans today and even during the GDR era were less willing to seek psychotherapy for mental suffering, they also have less contact to mentally ill people. Differences according to desires for distance from mentally ill people, self stigmatization in the presence of a mental illness and discrimination against mentally ill people emerged between East Germans, West Germans and internal migrants depending on generational affiliation.Discussion Barriers that prevent the use of psychotherapy should be taken into account on a generational and socialization specific basis. Socialization as a relevant factor might explain a lack of willingness to utilize psychotherapy amongst people that experienced the GDR era and still live in the new Federal States.
RESUMO
ZIEL: Erste Hypothesen zur wissenschaftlichen Rezeption von psychotherapeutischer Literatur aus der DDR und der Sowjetunion in einem Psychotherapieliteratur-Korpus der BRD (Praxis der Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik 1979-1990) sollten geprüft werden. Außerdem sollten inhaltliche Schwerpunkte der identifizierten wissenschaftlichen Communities verglichen werden. METHODIK: Es wurde eine bibliometrische und netzwerkanalytische Untersuchung von Zitationsbeziehungen sowie eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse der Rezeption von DDR-Literatur und der thematischen Schwerpunkte der identifizierten wissenschaftlichen Communities in Literaturkorpora aus Ost und West durchgeführt. ERGEBNISSE: Psychotherapeutische Literatur der DDR wird im untersuchten BRD-Korpus kaum zitiert. Inhaltlich wird diese Literatur nicht tiefergehend in die wissenschaftliche Argumentation des BRD-Korpus eingebunden. Die bekanntesten Vertreter*innen der DDR-Psychotherapie(-forschung) werden im BRD-Korpus gar nicht zitiert. Es lassen sich thematische Überschneidungen in beiden Korpora identifizieren, allerdings spielen DDR-spezifische Themen inhaltlich keine Rolle im BRD-Korpus. OBJECTIVE: The aim this study was to test first hypotheses on the scientific reception of literature on psychotherapy from the GDR and the Soviet Union in a corpus of psychotherapy literature from the FRG and to compare content-related foci of the identified scientific communities. METHODS: A bibliometric and network analysis of citation relations as well as a qualitative content analysis of the reception of GDR literature and the thematic foci of the identified scientific communities in both literature corpora were conducted. RESULTS: Psychotherapeutic literature of the GDR was barely cited in the examined FRG corpus. In terms of content, this literature was not integrated more deeply into the scientific argumentation of the FRG corpus. The best-known representatives of GDR psychotherapy (research) were not at all cited in the FRG corpus. Thematic overlaps could be identified in both corpora, but GDR-specific topics did not play a role in the FRG corpus. CONCLUSION: For the examined literature corpora it can be seen that publications from the GDR and Soviet Union are cited considerably less often in FRG literature than publications from the West in GDR literature. Thematically, original GDR psychotherapy content does not play a role in FRG literature either.