Antony Chum1,2, Celine Teo3, Karanpreet Kaur Azra3. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 4A, Canada. antony.chum@utoronto.ca. 2. MAP Center for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, M5V 1W8, Canada. antony.chum@utoronto.ca. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 4A, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While the association between neighbourhood cohesion and mental health has been widely studied in the general population, the effects of neighbourhood cohesion across ethnic groups are not well understood. Ethnicity is often left out of study design, many studies do not consider effect modification by ethnicity, or they rely on overly simplistic ethnic categories. METHODS: Data from the UK household longitudinal study were used to investigate whether changes in neighbourhood cohesion are independently associated with changes in mental health (measured using the GHQ) over 9 years (2009-2018), and whether the association differed across 17 ethnic groups. The study used a fixed-effect modeling approach that includes within-person estimators that allow each participant to act as their own control. RESULTS: Compared to British White, the following ethnic groups all saw a similar improvement in GHQ (- 0.76, 95% CI - 0.83 to - 0.70) for each point increase in neighbourhood cohesion: Irish, any other White, White and Asian mixed, Chinese, Caribbean, African, any other Black, Arab, and others. Some ethnic groups saw stronger improvements in mental for each point increase in neighbourhood cohesion, including White and Black Caribbean mixed, any other mixed, Indian, Pakistani, any other Asian, with the strongest effect seen in Bangladeshi participants (- 2.52. 95% CI - 3.48 to - 1.56). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance of ethnocultural data in research examining neighbourhood effects on mental health. Future research should evaluate policies to improve neighbourhood cohesion for ethnic minorities to address ethnic mental health disparities.
PURPOSE: While the association between neighbourhood cohesion and mental health has been widely studied in the general population, the effects of neighbourhood cohesion across ethnic groups are not well understood. Ethnicity is often left out of study design, many studies do not consider effect modification by ethnicity, or they rely on overly simplistic ethnic categories. METHODS: Data from the UK household longitudinal study were used to investigate whether changes in neighbourhood cohesion are independently associated with changes in mental health (measured using the GHQ) over 9 years (2009-2018), and whether the association differed across 17 ethnic groups. The study used a fixed-effect modeling approach that includes within-person estimators that allow each participant to act as their own control. RESULTS: Compared to British White, the following ethnic groups all saw a similar improvement in GHQ (- 0.76, 95% CI - 0.83 to - 0.70) for each point increase in neighbourhood cohesion: Irish, any other White, White and Asian mixed, Chinese, Caribbean, African, any other Black, Arab, and others. Some ethnic groups saw stronger improvements in mental for each point increase in neighbourhood cohesion, including White and Black Caribbean mixed, any other mixed, Indian, Pakistani, any other Asian, with the strongest effect seen in Bangladeshi participants (- 2.52. 95% CI - 3.48 to - 1.56). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance of ethnocultural data in research examining neighbourhood effects on mental health. Future research should evaluate policies to improve neighbourhood cohesion for ethnic minorities to address ethnic mental health disparities.
Authors: Spencer Moore; Ulf Bockenholt; Mark Daniel; Katherine Frohlich; Yan Kestens; Lucie Richard Journal: Health Place Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Christina Mair; Ana V Diez Roux; Mingwu Shen; Steven Shea; Theresa Seeman; Sandra Echeverria; Ellen S O'Meara Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Özcan Erdem; Richard G Prins; Toon A J J Voorham; Frank J van Lenthe; Alex Burdorf Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Darshini Govindasamy; Katharina Kranzer; Nienke van Schaik; Farzad Noubary; Robin Wood; Rochelle P Walensky; Kenneth A Freedberg; Ingrid V Bassett; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Judy Y Ou; Junenette L Peters; Jonathan I Levy; Roseann Bongiovanni; Alina Rossini; Madeleine K Scammell Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.295