ArticlePloS one2025
Economic factors associated with county-level mental health - United States, 2019.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A better understanding of whether and how economic factors impact mental health can inform policy and program decisions to improve mental health. This study looked at the association between county-level economic factors and the prevalence of self-reported poor mental health among adults in United States counties in 2019, overall and disaggregated for urban and rural counties. General dominance analyses were completed to rank-order the relative influence of the selected variables in explaining county prevalence of adults reporting > 14 poor mental health days in the last 30 days ("poor mental health"). The highest weighted variables were assessed for the statistical significance of their relationships with county-level poor mental health through multiple linear regression. Across all models, the four highest-ranked economic factors were household income, receipt of Supplemental Security Income, population with a college degree, and receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The overall, rural, and urban models explained over 68% of the variation in poor mental health prevalence between counties. Urban and rural models showed notable differences in the top factors associated with poor mental health and opposite associations between poor mental health and population with public insurance. The findings from this study indicate a significant association between several economic factors and poor mental health, which may inform decision makers in addressing mental health in the United States.
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.