Individual-level socio-economic factors, such as marital and employment status, have a stronger association with mood disorders than area-level deprivation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change clinical practice; leaves open whether neighborhood interventions could complement individual socio-economic support.
BACKGROUND: Associations have been demonstrated between contextual (area level) factors and a range of physical health outcomes, but their relationship with mental health outcomes is less well understood. AIMS: To investigate the relative strength of association between individual and area-level demographic and socio-economic factors and mood disorder prevalence in the UK. METHOD: Cross-sectional data from 19 687 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition in Norfolk. RESULTS: Area deprivation was associated with current (12-month) mood disorders after adjusting for individual-level socio-economic status (OR for top v. bottom quartile of deprivation scores 1.29, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P<0.001). However, this association was small relative to those observed for individual marital and employment status. Significant residual area-level variation in current mood disorders (representing 3.6% of total variation, P=0.04) was largely accounted for by individual-level factors. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the association between socio-economic status and mood disorders is greater at the individual level than at the area level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wainwright et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: