Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18631374›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2008

Psychosocial risk factors in home and community settings and their associations with population health and health inequalities: a systematic meta-review.

Matt Egan, Carol Tannahill, Mark Petticrew, Sian Thomas

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. The impact of a prevention delivery system on perceived social capital: the PROSPER project.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2014
    Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unity of Disease and Unity of Cure: An Evidence-based Perspective.Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Trans Adults Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: Quality of Life, Pandemic Impact, and Vaccine Preferences.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  20. Economics of mental well-being: a prospective study estimating associated health care costs and sickness benefit transfers in Denmark.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matt EganMedical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G128RZ, UK. matt.egan@health.scot.nhs.uk
Carol Tannahill
Mark Petticrew
Sian Thomas

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU1Medical Research Council MC_U130059812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effects of psychosocial risk factors on population health and health inequalities has featured prominently in epidemiological research literature as well as public health policy strategies. We have conducted a meta-review (a review of reviews) exploring how psychosocial factors may relate to population health in home and community settings.

methodsSystematic review (QUORUM) of literature reviews (published in any language or country) on the health associations of psychosocial risk factors in community settings. The literature search included electronic and manual searches. Two reviewers appraised included reviews using criteria for assessing systematic reviews. Data from the more robust reviews were extracted, tabulated and synthesised.

resultsThirty-one reviews met our inclusion criteria. These explored a variety of psychosocial factors including social support and networks, social capital, social cohesion, collective efficacy, participation in local organisations - and less favourable psychosocial risk factors such as demands, exposure to community violence or anti-social behaviour, exposure to discrimination, and stress related to acculturation to western society. Most of the reviews focused on associations between social networks/support and physical or mental health. We identified some evidence of favourable psychosocial environments associated with better health. Reviews also found evidence of unfavourable psychosocial risk factors linked to poorer health, particularly among socially disadvantaged groups. However, the more robust reviews each identified studies with inconclusive findings, as well as studies finding evidence of associations. We also identified some evidence of apparently favourable psychosocial risk factors associated with poorer health.

conclusionFrom the review literature we have synthesised, where associations have been identified, they generally support the view that favourable psychosocial environments go hand in hand with better health. Poor psychosocial environments may be health damaging and contribute to health inequalities. The evidence that underpins our understanding of these associations is of variable quality and consistency. Future research should seek to improve this evidence base, with more longitudinal analysis (and intervention evaluations) of the effects of apparently under-researched psychosocial factors such as control and participation within communities. Future policy interventions relevant to this field should be developed in partnership with researchers to enable a better understanding of psychosocial mechanisms and the effects of psychosocial interventions.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesPsychologyHumansResidence CharacteristicsRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID18631374
PMCPMC2503975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.