How Ethnic Minority Context Alters the Risk for Developing Mental Health Disorders and Psychological Distress for Latinx Young Adults.

Policy Points In low-income communities in the South Bronx and Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican youth are exposed to many of the same risk and protective factors for developing depression, anxiety, or psychological distress; yet it is unclear how the ethnic minority context of the South Bronx and ethnic majority context of Puerto Rico influence risk. Results from our quasi-experimental, longitudinal study demonstrate the importance of addressing social factors (parent-child relationships, youth peer relationships) for youth living in the majority context, and neighborhood and cultural factors (residential mobility, perceived discrimination, perceived social position in the neighborhood) for youth living in the minority context. Our findings support the need for tailoring programs specific to the needs of youth who reside in an ethnic majority or a minority context, since some of the risk factors might operate differently depending on context. Housing and neighborhood environment policies that address discrimination and eliminate structural inequities for ethnic minority groups may protect against the harm of minoritization on young people's mental health. CONTEXT: Puerto Rican youth growing up in low-income communities in the South Bronx and Puerto Rico are exposed to many of the same risk factors for major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and psychological distress. One potentially powerful factor differs: Puerto Ricans have been socially marginalized as an ethnic minority group in the South Bronx, but are the ethnic majority of the population in Puerto Rico. A growing body of literature demonstrates the influence of neighborhood, cultural, and social factors and parental psychopathology in the development of mental health problems. An important unanswered question is whether these risk and protective factors have the same impact for youth raised as members of an ethnic majority versus minority group. METHODS: Using a population-based cohort study, with four waves of assessment from early childhood into young adulthood, we investigated whether ethnic minority context alters risk and protective factors for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. Our longitudinal data set includes 2,491 young children at baseline (82.8% retained at wave 4). Using a quasi-experimental design, we examine how ethnic minority context can alter the development of mental health disorders as Latinx children transition to late adolescence and young adulthood. FINDINGS: Some risk and protective factors operated differently across minority and majority contexts. Higher discrimination and social position were more powerful risk and protective factors, respectively, in the minority context, whereas positive peer relationships mattered more in the majority context. Children of mothers with depression were significantly more likely to develop anxiety in late adolescence and young adulthood in the majority context (60.0%) compared to the minority context (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Preventing depression and anxiety disorders in Latinx young adults may require targeting different childhood factors depending on whether they reside within the ethnic majority or minority context. People in the ethnic minority context may benefit more from policies aimed at reducing discrimination and improving economic opportunity, while people in the majority context may benefit more from opportunities for strengthening family and peer relationships.

Mentoring future researchers: Advice and considerations.

Despite efforts to increase the diversity of academia, minority scholars continue to face significant barriers (e.g., higher financial burden, lack of institutional support for research interests, social isolation) that undermine their representation in the field and overall professional success. Researchers have suggested increased mentorship as a means of mitigating these challenges. In 2015, with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a panel of senior investigators met via WebEx to discuss strategies to improve the mentorship of underrepresented scholars. The topics covered by this panel included factors that optimize or challenge mentorship based on personal experience, what is special about mentorship in the context of race/ethnicity, relational dynamics, work-life balance, discrimination, and how to address challenges to the mentoring relationship. The current article provides an overview of the convening and synthesizes the lessons learned by panelists' first-hand experiences of mentoring trainees and junior faculty of color. Authors conclude with recommendations and a description of the social and institutional implications of bolstering the professional support of minority scholars. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluation of the Integrated Intervention for Dual Problems and Early Action Among Latino Immigrants With Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Misuse Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immigrants are at an increased risk for co-occurring mental health and substance misuse symptoms; however, effective treatments are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Integrated Intervention for Dual Problems and Early Action (IIDEA) program compared with enhanced usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This effectiveness randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 2, 2014, to February 2, 2017, in 17 clinics or emergency departments and 24 community sites in Boston, Massachusetts, as well as in Madrid and Barcelona, Spain. Equal randomization (1:1) in 2-person blocks was used, assigning participants to either the IIDEA treatment group (n = 172) or the enhanced usual care control group (n = 169). Intent-to-treat analyses assessed effectiveness, and post hoc analyses examined whether results varied by symptom severity or treatment dose. Eligible participants were between 18 and 70 years of age, self-identified as Latino, screened positive for co-occurring symptoms, and were not receiving specialty behavioral health services. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a 10-session IIDEA treatment or to enhanced usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were changes in alcohol and drug misuse and results of a urine test for drug metabolites but not for alcohol misuse. Secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression, generalized anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and overall mental health. Results: In total, 341 participants were randomized to either the IIDEA treatment group (n = 172; 94 [54.7%] female, mean [SD] age, 33.5 [11.6] years) or the enhanced usual care control group (n = 169; 80 [47.3%] female, mean [SD] age, 34.3 [11.8] years). No statistically significant effects of IIDEA were found for primary drug and alcohol outcomes (ASI Lite-drug score: ß = -0.02 [SE, 0.69; P = .88; Cohen d, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.17]; ASI Lite-alcohol score: ß = -0.01 [SE, 1.19; P = .66; Cohen d, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.12]; urine drug test result: ß = -0.36 [SE, 0.43; P = .50; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.61]), but statistically significant effects were observed for secondary mental health outcomes. The IIDEA treatment was effective in reducing depressive symptoms per the Public Health Questionnaire-9 score (ß = -1.14; SE, 0.47; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.04-0.36]), posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms per the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-5 score (ß = -3.23; SE, 1.59; P = .04; Cohen d, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.01-0.37]), and overall mental health symptoms per the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-20 (ß = -0.20; SE, 0.07; P = .01; Cohen d, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.42]) and composite mental health (ß = -3.70; SE, 1.75; P = .04; Cohen d, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.01-0.36]) scores at the 6-month follow-up. Exploratory analyses suggested that 6-month treatment effects occurred for patients whose drug misuse was moderate to severe at the baseline assessment. Among patients with moderate to severe substance misuse, IIDEA substantially reduced substance use per the urine test results (odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.67]; P = .01). Treatment dose showed small to large effect sizes by outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: The IIDEA treatment did not change drug misuse but did improve secondary mental health and substance misuse outcomes for a heterogeneous population with moderate to severe symptoms; this finding provides a path for treating Latino immigrants with co-occurring mental health and substance misuse symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02038855.