Andrei Szoke1,2,3,4, Baptiste Pignon5,6,7, Grégoire Baudin5,6,8, Andrea Tortelli5,9, Jean-Romain Richard5,7, Marion Leboyer5,6,10,7, Franck Schürhoff5,6,10,7. 1. INSERM, U955, Equipe 15, 94000, Créteil, France. andrei.szoke@inserm.fr. 2. Pôle de Psychiatrie et Addictologie, DHU PePsy, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier "Mondor", 94000, Créteil, France. andrei.szoke@inserm.fr. 3. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil, 94000, Créteil, France. andrei.szoke@inserm.fr. 4. Fondation Fondamental, 94000, Créteil, France. andrei.szoke@inserm.fr. 5. INSERM, U955, Equipe 15, 94000, Créteil, France. 6. Pôle de Psychiatrie et Addictologie, DHU PePsy, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier "Mondor", 94000, Créteil, France. 7. Fondation Fondamental, 94000, Créteil, France. 8. Université de Tours "François Rabelais", 37000, Tours, France. 9. Maison Blanche Hospital, 75020, Paris, France. 10. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Est Créteil, 94000, Créteil, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether significant variation in the incidence of clinically relevant psychoses existed at an ecological level in an urban French setting, and to examine possible factors associated with this variation. We aimed to advance the literature by testing this hypothesis in a novel population setting and by comparing a variety of spatial models. METHODS: We sought to identify all first episode cases of non-affective and affective psychotic disorders presenting in a defined urban catchment area over a 4 years period, over more than half a million person-years at-risk. Because data from geographic close neighbourhoods usually show spatial autocorrelation, we used for our analyses Bayesian modelling. We included small area neighbourhood measures of deprivation, migrants' density and social fragmentation as putative explanatory variables in the models. RESULTS: Incidence of broad psychotic disorders shows spatial patterning with the best fit for models that included both strong autocorrelation between neighbouring areas and weak autocorrelation between areas further apart. Affective psychotic disorders showed similar spatial patterning and were associated with the proportion of migrants/foreigners in the area (inverse correlation). In contrast, non-affective psychoses did not show spatial patterning. CONCLUSIONS: At ecological level, the variation in the number of cases and the factors that influence this variation are different for non-affective and affective psychotic disorders. Important differences in results-compared with previous studies in different settings-point to the importance of the context and the necessity of further studies to understand these differences.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether significant variation in the incidence of clinically relevant psychoses existed at an ecological level in an urban French setting, and to examine possible factors associated with this variation. We aimed to advance the literature by testing this hypothesis in a novel population setting and by comparing a variety of spatial models. METHODS: We sought to identify all first episode cases of non-affective and affective psychotic disorders presenting in a defined urban catchment area over a 4 years period, over more than half a million person-years at-risk. Because data from geographic close neighbourhoods usually show spatial autocorrelation, we used for our analyses Bayesian modelling. We included small area neighbourhood measures of deprivation, migrants' density and social fragmentation as putative explanatory variables in the models. RESULTS: Incidence of broad psychotic disorders shows spatial patterning with the best fit for models that included both strong autocorrelation between neighbouring areas and weak autocorrelation between areas further apart. Affective psychotic disorders showed similar spatial patterning and were associated with the proportion of migrants/foreigners in the area (inverse correlation). In contrast, non-affective psychoses did not show spatial patterning. CONCLUSIONS: At ecological level, the variation in the number of cases and the factors that influence this variation are different for non-affective and affective psychotic disorders. Important differences in results-compared with previous studies in different settings-point to the importance of the context and the necessity of further studies to understand these differences.
Authors: Dana March; Stephani L Hatch; Craig Morgan; James B Kirkbride; Michaeline Bresnahan; Paul Fearon; Ezra Susser Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2008-07-30 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Wim Veling; Ezra Susser; Jim van Os; Johan P Mackenbach; Jean-Paul Selten; Hans W Hoek Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Baptiste Pignon; Franck Schürhoff; Grégoire Baudin; Andrea Tortelli; Aziz Ferchiou; Ghassen Saba; Jean-Romain Richard; Antoine Pelissolo; Marion Leboyer; Andrei Szöke Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.035