English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  This study tests whether depression, psychosocial adversity, and limited social assets offer protection or suggest vulnerability to the process of radicalisation.    Methods  A population sample of 608 men and women of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, of Muslim heritage, and aged 18–45 were recruited by quota sampling. Radicalisation was measured by 16 questions asking about  sympathies for violent protest and terrorism . Cluster analysis of the 16 items generated three groups: most sympathetic (or most vulnerable), most condemning (most resistant), and a large intermediary group that acted as a reference group. Associations were calculated with depression (PHQ9), anxiety (GAD7), poor health, and psychosocial adversity (adverse life events, perceived discrimination, unemployment). We also investigated protective factors such as the number social contacts, social capital (trust, satisfaction, feeling safe), political engagement and religiosity.    Results  Those showing the most sympathy for violent protest and terrorism were more likely to report depression (PHQ9 score of 5 or more; RR = 5.43, 1.35 to 21.84) and to report religion to be important (less often said religion was  fairly  rather than  very important ; RR = 0.08, 0.01 to 0.48). Resistance to radicalisation measured by condemnation of violent protest and terrorism was associated with larger number of social contacts (per contact: RR = 1.52, 1.26 to 1.83), less social capital (RR = 0.63, 0.50 to 0.80), unavailability for work due to housekeeping or disability (RR = 8.81, 1.06 to 37.46), and not being born in the UK (RR = 0.22, 0.08 to 0.65).    Conclusions  Vulnerability to radicalisation is characterised by depression but resistance to radicalisation shows a different profile of health and psychosocial variables. The paradoxical role of social capital warrants further investigation.

Might Depression, Psychosocial Adversity, and Limited Social Assets Explain Vulnerability to and Resistance against Violent Radicalisation?