BACKGROUND: Individuals in lower socio-economic groups have an increased prevalence of common mental disorders. AIMS: To investigate the longitudinal association between socio-economic position and common mental disorders in a general population sample in the UK. METHOD: Participants (n=2406) were assessed at two time points 18 months apart with the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule. The sample was stratified into two cohorts according to mental health status at baseline. RESULTS: None of the socio-economic indicators studied was significantly associated with an episode of common mental disorder at follow-up after adjusting for baseline psychiatric morbidity. The analysis of separate diagnostic categories showed that subjective financial difficulties at baseline were independently associated with depression at follow-up in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the view that apart from objective measures of socio-economic position, more subjective measures might be equally important from an aetiological or clinical perspective.
BACKGROUND: Individuals in lower socio-economic groups have an increased prevalence of common mental disorders. AIMS: To investigate the longitudinal association between socio-economic position and common mental disorders in a general population sample in the UK. METHOD:Participants (n=2406) were assessed at two time points 18 months apart with the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule. The sample was stratified into two cohorts according to mental health status at baseline. RESULTS: None of the socio-economic indicators studied was significantly associated with an episode of common mental disorder at follow-up after adjusting for baseline psychiatric morbidity. The analysis of separate diagnostic categories showed that subjective financial difficulties at baseline were independently associated with depression at follow-up in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the view that apart from objective measures of socio-economic position, more subjective measures might be equally important from an aetiological or clinical perspective.
Authors: Elina Laaksonen; Tea Lallukka; Eero Lahelma; Jane E Ferrie; Ossi Rahkonen; Jenny Head; Michael G Marmot; Pekka Martikainen Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Laura Pulkki-Råback; Kirsi Ahola; Marko Elovainio; Mika Kivimäki; Mirka Hintsanen; Erkki Isometsä; Jouko Lönnqvist; Marianna Virtanen Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: M Martin-Carrasco; S Evans-Lacko; G Dom; N G Christodoulou; J Samochowiec; E González-Fraile; P Bienkowski; M Gómez-Beneyto; M J H Dos Santos; D Wasserman Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Kim M Kiely; Liana S Leach; Sarah C Olesen; Peter Butterworth Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 4.328