Dataset Information

Prevalence of mental illness in primary care and its association with deprivation and social fragmentation at the small-area level in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to spatially describe mental illness prevalence in England at small-area geographical level, as measured by prevalence of depression, severe mental illness (SMI) and antidepressant prescription volume in primary care records, and how much of their variation was explained by deprivation, social fragmentation and sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

Information on prevalence of depression and SMI was obtained from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) administrative dataset for 2015/16 and the national dispensing dataset for 2015/16. Linear regression models were fitted to examine ecological associations between deprivation, social fragmentation, other sociodemographic characteristics and mental illness prevalence.

Results

Mental illness prevalence varied within and between regions, with clusters of high prevalence identified across England. Our models explained 33.4-68.2% of variability in prevalence, but substantial variability between regions remained after adjusting for covariates. People in socially cohesive and socially deprived areas were more likely to be diagnosed with depression, while people in more socially fragmented and more socially deprived areas were more likely to be diagnosed with SMI.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that to tackle mental health inequalities, attention needs to be targeted at more socially deprived localities. The role of social fragmentation warrants further investigation, and it is possible that depression remains undiagnosed in more socially fragmented areas. The wealth of routinely collected data can provide robust evidence to aid optimal resource allocation. If comparable data are available in other countries, similar methods could be deployed to identify high prevalence clusters and target funding to areas of greater need.

SUBMITTER: Grigoroglou C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7083582 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, there are growing concerns about antimicrobial resistance. This has resulted in increased scrutiny of antibiotic prescribing trends - particularly in primary care where the majority of prescribing occurs. In England, antibiotic prescribing targets are set nationally but little is known about the local context of antibiotic prescribing. This study aimed to examine trends in antibiotic prescribing (including broad-spectrum), and the association with area-level deprivation and region in England.MethodsAntibiotic prescribing data by GP surgery in England were obtained from NHS Business Service Authority for the years 2014-2018. These data were matched with the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 at the Lower Layer Super Output Area level Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level. Linear regression methods were employed to explore the relationship between antibiotic use and area-level deprivation as well as region, after controlling for a range of other confounding variables, including health need, rurality, and ethnicity.ResultsOver time, the amount of antibiotic prescribing significantly reduced from 1.11 items per STAR-PU to 0.96 items per STAR-PU - a reduction of 13.6%. The adjusted models found that, at LSOA level, the most deprived areas of England had the highest levels of antibiotic prescribing (0.03 items per STAR-PU higher). However, broad spectrum antibiotic prescribing exceeding 10% of all antibiotic prescribing within a GP practice was higher in more affluent areas. There were also significant regional differences - with the North East and the East of England having the highest levels of antibiotic prescribing (by 0.16 items per STAR-PU).ConclusionAlthough antibiotic prescribing has reduced over time, there remains significant variation in by area-level deprivation and region in England - with higher antibiotic prescribing in more deprived areas. Future prescribing targets should account for local factors to ensure the most deprived communities are not inappropriately penalised.

Project description:BackgroundStudies show that children and adolescents in the most socially deprived areas (SDA) consult their general practitioner (GP) more often than those in the least socially deprived areas (Non-SDA). Given that GPs see a wide range of diseases, it is important to know which clinical diagnoses are shaped by socioeconomic factors. The primary objective was to determine the association between area level social deprivation and consultation rates in a pediatric population. The secondary objective was to explore this association across a wide range of clinical diagnoses.MethodsA cohort study using the Rijnmond Primary Care Database (RPCD) was conducted. Between 2013 and 2020, a total of 69,861 patients aged 0 to 17 years registered with a GP were analysed. A consultation was defined as patient contact and entry of a diagnosis using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-1) code. Associations between consultation rates, ICPC-1 codes and area level social deprivation were explored using a Poisson regression model. The incidence risk ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported.ResultsOver the 7-year study period the consultation rate of the study population was 3.8 per person-years. The top 5 reasons for children and adolescents to consult their GP was related to skin, respiratory, general unspecified, musculoskeletal and digestive symptoms or diagnoses. Consultation rate was higher in SDA group compared to Non-SDA group (IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.19-1.20). Consultation rate for ICPC-1 code related to pregnancy and family planning was significantly lower in SDA group compared to Non-SDA group. Upon further exploration of this code, SDA group were less likely to consult for oral contraception and more likely to contact a GP for induced termination of pregnancy compared to Non-SDA group (IRR 0.36; 95% CI 0.33-0.44 and IRR 2.94; 95% CI 1.58-5.46 respectively).ConclusionsOverall, SDA group had higher GP consultation rates for the majority of clinical diagnoses except for pregnancy and family planning. In this latter category, adolescent females in SDA consulted less frequently for oral contraception. This study illustrates the need to understand the underlying health seeking behaviors of children and adolescents at different development phases of their lives.

Project description:ImportanceDiabetes management operates under a complex interrelationship between behavioral, social, and economic factors that affect a patient's ability to self-manage and access care.ObjectiveTo examine the association between 2 complementary area-based metrics, area deprivation index (ADI) score and rurality, and optimal diabetes care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed the electronic health records of patients who were receiving care at any of the 75 Mayo Clinic or Mayo Clinic Health System primary care practices in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin in 2019. Participants were adults with diabetes aged 18 to 75 years. All data were abstracted and analyzed between June 1 and November 30, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the attainment of all 5 components of the D5 metric of optimal diabetes care: glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <8.0%), blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), lipid control (use of statin therapy according to recommended guidelines), aspirin use (for patients with ischemic vascular disease), and no tobacco use. The proportion of patients receiving optimal diabetes care was calculated as a function of block group-level ADI score (a composite measure of 17 US Census indicators) and zip code-level rurality (calculated using Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes). Odds of achieving the D5 metric and its components were assessed using logistic regression that was adjusted for demographic characteristics, coronary artery disease history, and primary care team specialty.ResultsAmong the 31 934 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 59 [11.7] years; 17 645 men [55.3%]), 13 138 (41.1%) achieved the D5 metric of optimal diabetes care. Overall, 4090 patients (12.8%) resided in the least deprived quintile (quintile 1) of block groups and 1614 (5.1%) lived in the most deprived quintile (quintile 5), while 9193 patients (28.8%) lived in rural areas and 2299 (7.2%) in highly rural areas. The odds of meeting the D5 metric were lower for individuals residing in quintile 5 vs quintile 1 block groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78). Patients residing in rural (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and highly rural (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.91) zip codes were also less likely to attain the D5 metric compared with those in urban areas.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that patients living in more deprived and rural areas were significantly less likely to attain high-quality diabetes care compared with those living in less deprived and urban areas. The results call for geographically targeted population health management efforts by health systems, public health agencies, and payers.

Project description:ObjectivesMost research on health inequalities uses aggregated deprivation scores assigned to the small area where the patient lives; however, the concordance between aggregate area-level deprivation measures and personal deprivation experienced by individuals living in the area is poorly understood. Our objective was to examine the agreement between individual and ecological deprivation. We tested the concordance between metrics of income, occupation and education at individual and area levels, and assessed the reliability of area-based deprivation measures to predict individual deprivation circumstances.SettingEngland and Wales.ParticipantsA cancer patient cohort of 9547 individuals extracted from the Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study.OutcomesWe quantified the concordance between measures of income, occupation and education at individual and area level. In addition, we used ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) to assess the reliability of area-based deprivation measures to predict individual deprivation circumstances.ResultsWe found low concordance between individual-level and area-level indicators of deprivation (Cramer's V statistics range between 0.07 and 0.20). The most commonly used indicator in health inequalities research, area-based income deprivation, was a poor predictor of individual income status (AUC between 0.56 and 0.59), whereas education and occupation were slightly better predictors (AUC between 0.62 and 0.65). The results were consistent across sexes and across six major cancer types.ConclusionsOur results indicate that ecological deprivation measures capture only part of the relationship between deprivation and health outcomes, especially with respect to income measurement. This has important implications for our understanding of the relationship between deprivation and health, and, as a consequence, healthcare policy. The results have a wide-reaching impact for the way in which we measure and monitor inequalities, and in turn, fund and organise current UK healthcare policy aimed at reducing them.

Project description:Although social capital has been linked to population health, there is a dearth of studies on the phenomenon especially in sub-Saharan Africa. We investigated the individual and contextual effects of social capital indicators (group membership, registered to vote, perception towards safety in community and generalised trust) on the self-rated health (SRH) of the residents of Gauteng province. We used data from the 2015 Quality of Life (QoL) survey, which included a random representative sample of 27476 residents (level 1) in 508 administrative wards (level 2). We employed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association of social capital and SRH (good vs poor). After adjusting for individual and area-level factors, no main effect of group membership (Adjusted OR: 0.93: 95% CI: 0.85-1.02), generalised trust (Adjusted OR: 1.01: 95% CI: 0.89-1.49) and registered to vote (Adjusted OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.82-1.10) was observed. However, if respondents were positive in their perception towards safety in community, there was a positive association with good SRH (Adjusted OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01-1.31); while if residents reported a negative perception towards safety in community, a strong negative association with good SRH (Adjusted OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79) was observed. Both ward variance and median odds ratio (MOR) indicate significant differences in good SRH by wards. A strong positive joint effect on the multiplicative scale was observed between satisfied with safety and the ward-level South African Multiple Deprivation Poverty Index (SAMPI), while a strong negative joint effect was also observed on a multiplicative scale between dissatisfied with safety and the SAMPI. Perception of safety in community is the core domain of social capital that significantly impacts the SRH of residents of Gauteng. Although the effect of perception towards safety in community on good SRH is influenced by ward deprivation,the effect is not dependent on the level of deprivation. Contextual factors as evidenced by the persistent MOR, in addition to individual factors, explain variation in reporting good SRH in the study area.