Gina S Lovasi1, Stephen J Mooney2, Peter Muennig3, Charles DiMaggio4. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health, Urban Health Collaborative, Drexel University, 3600 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. gsl45@drexel.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, USA. 4. Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our surroundings affect our mood, our recovery from stress, our behavior, and, ultimately, our mental health. Understanding how our surroundings influence mental health is central to creating healthy cities. However, the traditional observational methods now dominant in the psychiatric epidemiology literature are not sufficient to advance such an understanding. In this essay we consider potential alternative strategies, such as randomizing people to places, randomizing places to change, or harnessing natural experiments that mimic randomized experiments. METHODS: We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these methodological approaches with respect to (1) defining the most relevant scale and characteristics of context, (2) disentangling the effects of context from the effects of individuals' preferences and prior health, and (3) generalizing causal effects beyond the study setting. RESULTS: Promising alternative strategies include creating many small-scale randomized place-based trials, using the deployment of place-based changes over time as natural experiments, and using fluctuations in the changes in our surroundings in combination with emerging data collection technologies to better understand how surroundings influence mood, behavior, and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Improving existing research strategies will require interdisciplinary partnerships between those specialized in mental health, those advancing new methods for place effects on health, and those who seek to optimize the design of local environments.
OBJECTIVES: Our surroundings affect our mood, our recovery from stress, our behavior, and, ultimately, our mental health. Understanding how our surroundings influence mental health is central to creating healthy cities. However, the traditional observational methods now dominant in the psychiatric epidemiology literature are not sufficient to advance such an understanding. In this essay we consider potential alternative strategies, such as randomizing people to places, randomizing places to change, or harnessing natural experiments that mimic randomized experiments. METHODS: We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these methodological approaches with respect to (1) defining the most relevant scale and characteristics of context, (2) disentangling the effects of context from the effects of individuals' preferences and prior health, and (3) generalizing causal effects beyond the study setting. RESULTS: Promising alternative strategies include creating many small-scale randomized place-based trials, using the deployment of place-based changes over time as natural experiments, and using fluctuations in the changes in our surroundings in combination with emerging data collection technologies to better understand how surroundings influence mood, behavior, and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Improving existing research strategies will require interdisciplinary partnerships between those specialized in mental health, those advancing new methods for place effects on health, and those who seek to optimize the design of local environments.
Entities:
Keywords:
Case study; Causal models; Change-point; Place; Spatiotemporal
Authors: Andrew G Rundle; Daniel M Sheehan; James W Quinn; Katherine Bartley; Donna Eisenhower; Michael M D Bader; Gina S Lovasi; Kathryn M Neckerman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Oliver Gruebner; Sarah R Lowe; Melissa Tracy; Magdalena Cerdá; Spruha Joshi; Fran H Norris; Sandro Galea Journal: Disaster Med Public Health Prep Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 1.385
Authors: B P Dohrenwend; I Levav; P E Shrout; S Schwartz; G Naveh; B G Link; A E Skodol; A Stueve Journal: Science Date: 1992-02-21 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Ding Ding; Marc A Adams; James F Sallis; Gregory J Norman; Melbourn F Hovell; Christina D Chambers; C Richard Hofstetter; Heather R Bowles; Maria Hagströmer; Cora L Craig; Luis Fernando Gomez; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Duncan J Macfarlane; Barbara E Ainsworth; Patrick Bergman; Fiona C Bull; Harriette Carr; Lena Klasson-Heggebo; Shigeru Inoue; Norio Murase; Sandra Matsudo; Victor Matsudo; Grant McLean; Michael Sjöström; Heidi Tomten; Johan Lefevre; Vida Volbekiene; Adrian E Bauman Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Yung-Chia Hsueh; Rachel Batchelor; Margaux Liebmann; Ashley Dhanani; Laura Vaughan; Anne-Kathrin Fett; Farhana Mann; Alexandra Pitman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Bina Ram; Aparna Shankar; Claire M Nightingale; Billie Giles-Corti; Anne Ellaway; Ashley R Cooper; Angie Page; Steven Cummins; Daniel Lewis; Peter H Whincup; Derek G Cook; Alicja R Rudnicka; Christopher G Owen Journal: Health Place Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Stephen J Mooney; Jennifer F Bobb; Philip M Hurvitz; Jane Anau; Mary Kay Theis; Adam Drewnowski; Anju Aggarwal; Shilpi Gupta; Dori E Rosenberg; Andrea J Cook; Xiao Shi; Paula Lozano; Anne Vernez Moudon; David Arterburn Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-05-19
Authors: Gill Hubbard; Chantal den Daas; Marie Johnston; Peter Murchie; Catharine Ward Thompson; Diane Dixon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.390