ArticleEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2015
Investigating 'place effects' on mental health: implications for population-based studies in psychiatry.
Article in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influencing factors of length of stay among repeatedly hospitalized patients with mood disorders: a longitudinal study in China.Annals of general psychiatry · 2024Article
- Assessing the association between overcrowding and human physiological stress response in different urban contexts: a case study in Salzburg, Austria.International journal of health geographics · 2023Article
- Geographical Patterns in Drug-Related Mortality and Suicide: Investigating Commonalities in English Small Areas.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Article
- Depression and violent crime: is there a relationship?Evidence-based mental health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Interest in features of our local environments that may promote better mental health and wellbeing continues to rise among decision makers. Our purpose was to highlight a selection of these challenges and some promising avenues for enhancing the quality of evidence. Method. An analysis of approximately 267, 000 people was used to test the local relative deprivation hypothesis, wherein the shortfall of a person's socioeconomic circumstances from their neighbours is said to impact negatively upon mental health. This case was used to anchor further discussion of challenges to identifying and interpreting genuine 'place effects' from spurious correlations. Results. A Median Odds Ratio of 1.29 computed via multilevel logistic regression showed that the odds of experiencing psychological distress (as measured by the Kessler score) varied by geographical area. Approximately 67% of this was attributed to a cross-classified measure of household income and neighbourhood deprivation. Compared to people on high incomes living in affluent neighbourhoods, the odds ratio of psychological distress for people on low incomes in affluent areas was 4.73 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.39, 5.09), whereas that for people on low incomes in deprived areas was significantly higher at 5.83 (95% CI 5.41, 6.28). Conclusions. While no evidence was found to support local relative deprivation hypothesis, the pattern suggests that more affluent areas may contain features that are conducive to better mental health. Selection of bespoke geographical boundaries, use of directed acyclic graphs and more evaluations of natural experiments are likely to be important in taking the field of enquiry onwards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.