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: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:BackgroundPeople living in more deprived areas of high-income countries have lower cancer survival than those in less deprived areas. However, associations between individual-level socio-economic circumstances and cancer survival are relatively poorly understood. Moreover, few studies have addressed contextual effects, where associations between individual-level socio-economic status and cancer survival vary depending on area-based deprivation.MethodsUsing 9276 individual-level observations from a longitudinal study in England and Wales, we examined the association with cancer survival of area-level deprivation and individual-level occupation, education, and income, for colorectal, prostate and breast cancer patients aged 20-99 at diagnosis. With flexible parametric excess hazard models, we estimated excess mortality across individual-level and area-level socio-economic variables and investigated contextual effects.ResultsFor colorectal cancers, we found evidence of an association between education and cancer survival in men with Excess Hazard Ratio (EHR) = 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.60;1.08 comparing "degree-level qualification and higher" to "no qualification" and EHR = 0.74 [0.56;0.97] comparing "apprenticeships and vocational qualification" to "no qualification", adjusted on occupation and income; and between occupation and cancer survival for women with EHR = 0.77 [0.54;1.10] comparing "managerial/professional occupations" to "manual/technical," and EHR = 0.81 [0.63;1.06] comparing "intermediate" to "manual/technical", adjusted on education and income. For breast cancer in women, we found evidence of an association with income (EHR = 0.52 [0.29;0.95] for the highest income quintile compared to the lowest, adjusted on education and occupation), while for prostate cancer, all three individual-level socio-economic variables were associated to some extent with cancer survival. We found contextual effects of area-level deprivation on survival inequalities between occupation types for breast and prostate cancers, suggesting wider individual-level inequalities in more deprived areas compared to least deprived areas. Individual-level income inequalities for breast cancer were more evident than an area-level differential, suggesting that area-level deprivation might not be the most effective measure of inequality for this cancer. For colorectal cancer in both sexes, we found evidence suggesting area- and individual-level inequalities, but no evidence of contextual effects.ConclusionsFindings highlight that both individual and contextual effects contribute to inequalities in cancer outcomes. These insights provide potential avenues for more effective policy and practice.