Table 1.
Study and sample characteristics
| Ethnic group | Study | Study Design | Geographic location | Theoretical framework (yes or no) | Sample size | Age (Mean)/ Female (F) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese | Leung, Cheung, & Tsui (2019) | Quantitative Survey | Houston, TX | No | N = 516 |
Age: (48.3) F = 293 (56.8%) |
| Park et al. (2019) | Qualitative | Northern CA | Behavioral Model and Access to Medical Care (Aday & Andersen, 1974) | N = 15 married women |
Age: (33.2) F = 15 (100%) |
|
| Anyon et al. (2012) |
Sequential mixed methods Phase 1: secondary data analysis using 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBS) Phase 2: 2008 focus groups among students who had not accessed services from their School Health Programs. |
San Francisco, CA | No |
Phase 1: 2007 YRBS n = approx. 732 Chinese Americans Phase 2: N = 44 high school students |
Phase 1: age (NA); F = NA Phase 2: 9th grade (n=29) and 10th grade (n=15) F = (50%) |
|
| Abe-Kim, Takeuchi, & Hwang (2002) | Secondary data analysis using Chinese American Psychiatric Epidemiological Study (CAPES) | Los Angeles county | Network-episode model of help seeking | N = 1,503 |
Age: 30-49 F = (49.6%) |
|
| Spencer & Chen (2004) | Secondary data analysis using the 2-wave Chinese American Psychiatric Epidemiological Survey (CAPES) | Los Angeles county | No |
Wave 1: N = 1,747 Wave 2: N = 1,503 |
Age: (40.1) F = 788 (52.4%) |
|
| Kung & Lu (2008) | Secondary data analysis using the 2-wave Chinese American Psychiatric Epidemiological Survey (CAPES) | Los Angeles county | No | Only Wave 1 used. Two subsamples were examined with full sub sample consisting of N = 246 respondents with diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or somatoform d/o as a single d/o or comorbid d/o) | NA for specific subsamples. | |
| Kung (2003) | Secondary data analysis using the 2-wave Chinese American Psychiatric Epidemiological Survey (CAPES) | Los Angeles county | No | N = 1,747 |
Whole sample Age: (37.81) F = (49.5%) Subsample with psychiatric disorder Age: (39.9) F = (48.5%) |
|
| Kung (2004) | Secondary data analysis using the 2-wave Chinese American Psychiatric Epidemiological Survey (CAPES) | Los Angeles county | No | N = 1,747 |
Age: NA F = (49.5%) |
|
| Yee, Ceballos, & Lawless (2020) | Quantitative | 20 states recruited. Top recruitment states: Texas, CA, NY, Michigan, and OK | No |
N = 251 Texas: 168 CA: 22 NY: 12 Michigan:8 OK: 6 |
Age: 18-61 (32.6) F = (59.8%) |
|
| Chen & Mak (2008) | Quantitative | University of California system at California | No | N = 194 students |
Age: (19.7) F = 132 (68%) |
|
| Tata & Leong (1994) | Quantitative | University of Illinois at Chicago | No | N = 219 university students |
Age: (24.7) F = 117 (53.4%) |
|
| Ying & Miller (1992) | Quantitative | San Francisco, CA | No | N = 143 |
Age: (35.6) F = (49.2%) |
|
| Filipino | David (2010) | Quantitative | NA | No | N = 118 |
Age: (30.2) F = (47.5%) |
| Abe-Kim, Gong, & Takeuchi, (2004) | Secondary data analysis using Filipino American Epidemiological Study (FACES) 1998-1999 | San Francisco and Honolulu | No | N = 2,285 |
Age: 18-49 F = (50.6%) |
|
| Tuazon, Gonzalez, Gutierrez, & Nelson, (2019) | Quantitative | NA | Identity Theory (Marcia, 1980) | N = 410 |
Age: (35.5) F = 321 (78.3%) |
|
| Gong, Gage, & Tacata, (2003) | Secondary data analysis using Filipino American Epidemiological Study (FACES) 1998-1999 | San Francisco and Honolulu | No | N = 2,230 |
Age: (42) F = (51%) |
|
| Asian Indian | Turner & Mohan (2016) | Quantitative | Primary recruitment in Texas, and remainder in CA, Maryland, Ohio, and Florida | Theory of Planned Behavior | N = 89 parents |
Age: (42.4) F = 67 (75.3%) |
| Korean | Donnelly (2005) | Qualitative | respondents were recruited from a family support group in an Asian Mental Health Clinic (AMHC) located in an urban community. | Interpretive-phenomenology | N = 10 |
Age: (56.1) F = 7 (70%) |
| Han, Goyal, Lee, Cho, & Kim (2020) | Qualitative | US ("Participants were recruited from the first author’s networks”) | No | N = 11 |
Age: (33.5) F = 11 (100%) |
|
| Oh, Ko, & Waldman (2019) | Quantitative | Los Angeles, CA | No | N = 137 |
Age: (average age was approximately 30) F = 75 (55%) * The study only provides the approximate percentage instead of the exact sample size for males. The number of females was calculated based on the original study information. |
|
| Kim, Kehoe, Gibbs, & Lee (2019) | Qualitative | Southern California | No | N = 18 |
Age: (65.3) F = 15 (83.3%) |
|
| Jeong, Mccreary, Hughes, & Jeong (2018) | Qualitative | Chicago | Jorm’s (2000) mental health literacy model | N = 14 |
Age: (44.7) F = 10 (71.4%) |
|
| Jeon, Park, & Bernstein (2017) | Quantitative | New York City (NYC) or in metropolitan New Jersey | No | N = 286 |
Age: (54.4) F = 171 (59.8%) |
|
| Park & Bernstein (2008) | Review paper | NA | No | NA | NA | |
| Cheon, Chang, Kim, & Hyun (2016) | Qualitative | US (I am assuming CA because "Participants were recruited from the first author’s professional and personal networks ? | No | N = 10 |
Age: (45.5) F = 1 (10%) |
|
| Lee-Tauler et al. (2016) | A qualitative follow-up study | Geographic location; (The Memory and Aging Study of Koreans; MASK) | No | N = 8 qualitative interviews |
Age: (67.4) F = 4 (50%) |
|
| Vietnamese | Kim-Mozeleski et al. (2018) | Quantitative | San Francisco Bay Area and the Greater Washington DC area | No | N = 1666 |
Age: (48) F = 973 (58.4%) |
| Ta Park, Goyal, Nguyen, Lien, & Rosidi (2017) | Mixed-methods pilot study | Northern California | No | N = 15 |
Age: (32.3) F = 15 (100%) |
|
| Ta Park et al. (2018) | Qualitative study | Northern California |
No (Cognitive Behavioral Model/programs was mentioned) |
N = 8 |
Age: (Median 52.5) F = 6 (75.0%) |
|
| Guo, Nguyen, Weiss, Ngo, & Lau (2015) | Quantitative | Mixed lower- and middle-income communities. |
The Andersen behavioral model (ABM) and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) |
N = 169 youths Vietnamese American (n=99) and European American (n=70) youth in 10th and 11th |
Time 1 survey age: (15.6) *from a sample of 427 students. The mean age for the longitudinal sample of 169 was not reported. F = NA *The study only provides the approximate percentage instead of the exact sample size for males among both Vietnamese Americans and European Americans. Authors stated that “Of these participants, 58.6% (n = 99) were Vietnamese American and 41.4% (n = 70) were European American; 46.2% (n = 78) were male.” (p. 684). |
|
| Luu, Leung, & Nash (2009) | Quantitative | Houston, Texas | No | N = 210 (195 respondents were used for the regression model) |
Age: (45.6) F = 105 (About 50%) * The study only provides the approximate percentage instead of the exact sample size for males (50%). The number of females was calculated based on the original study information. |
|
| Appel, Huang, Ai, & Lin (2011) | Quantitative |
US (a nationally representative sample from the National Latino Asian American Study (NLAAS) |
No | N = 1,097 |
Age: (41.2) F = 1097 (100%) |
|
| Leung, Cheung, & Cheung (2010) | Quantitative | Houston, Texas | No | N = 572 |
Age: (37.9) F = 267 (47%) |
|
| Nguyen & Anderson (2005) | Quantitative | A large southwestern city | No (The role of acculturation was mentioned) | N = 148 |
Age: (46.4) F = 55 (37.7% among 146 respondents) * The study only provides the approximate percentage instead of the exact sample size for the gender variable out of 146 people instead of a total sample size of 148. The number of females was calculated based on the original study information. |