Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36990477›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Is spatial exposure to heritage associated with visits to heritage and to mental health? A cross-sectional study using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS).

Laura Macdonald, Natalie Nicholls, Eirini Gallou, Linda Monckton, Richard Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Laura MacdonaldMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Laura.Macdonald@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0593-8079
Natalie NichollsMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0745-7065
Eirini GallouPolicy and Evidence, Historic England, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3353-516X
Linda MoncktonPolicy and Evidence, Historic England, London, UK.
Richard MitchellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3827-7155

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU19Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExisting research highlights the beneficial nature of heritage engagement for mental health, but engagement varies geographically and socially, and few studies explore spatial exposure (ie, geographic availability) to heritage and heritage visits. Our research questions were 'does spatial exposure to heritage vary by area income deprivation?', 'is spatial exposure to heritage linked to visiting heritage?' and 'is spatial exposure to heritage linked to mental health?'. Additionally, we explored whether local heritage is associated with mental health regardless of the presence of green space.

designData were collected from January 2014 to June 2015 via the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) wave 5. Our study is cross-sectional.

settingUKHLS data were either collected via face-to-face interview or online questionnaire.

participants30 431 adults (16+ years) (13 676 males, 16 755 females). Participants geocoded to Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 'neighbourhood' and 'English Index of Multiple Deprivation' 2015 income score. MAIN EXPOSURES/OUTCOME MEASURES: LSOA-level heritage exposure and green space exposure (ie, population and area densities); heritage site visit in the past year (outcome, binary: no, yes); mental distress (outcome, General Health Questionnaire-12, binary: less distressed 0-3, more distressed 4+).

resultsHeritage varied by deprivation, the most deprived areas (income quintile (Q)1: 1.8) had fewer sites per 1000 population than the least deprived (Q5: 11.1) (p<0.01). Compared with those with no LSOA-level heritage, those with heritage exposure were more likely to have visited a heritage site in the past year (OR: 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22)) (p<0.01). Among those with heritage exposure, visitors to heritage had a lower predicted probability of distress (0.171 (95% CI 0.162 to 0.179)) than non-visitors (0.238 (95% CI 0.225 to 0.252)) (p<0.001).

conclusionsOur research contributes to evidence for the well-being benefits of heritage and is highly relevant to the government's levelling-up heritage strategy. Our findings can feed into schemes to tackle inequality in heritage exposure to improve both heritage engagement and mental health.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleUnited Kingdommental healthpublic healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID36990477
PMCPMC10069496

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.