Dataset Information

Changes in Mental Health Following the 2016 Presidential Election.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 2016 presidential election and the controversial policy agenda of its victor have raised concerns about how the election may have impacted mental health.

Objective

Assess how mental health changed from before to after the November 2016 election and how trends differed in states that voted for Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.

Design

Pre- versus post-election study using monthly cross-sectional survey data.

Participants

A total of 499,201 adults surveyed in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from May 2016 to May 2017.

Exposure

Residence in a state that voted for Trump versus state that voted for Clinton and the candidate's margin of victory in the state.

Main measures

Self-reported days of poor mental health in the last 30 days and depression rate.

Key results

Compared to October 2016, the mean days of poor mental health in the last 30 days per adult rose from 3.35 to 3.85 in December 2016 in Clinton states (0.50 days difference, p = 0.005) but remained statistically unchanged in Trump states, moving from 3.94 to 3.78 days (- 0.17 difference, p = 0.308). The rises in poor mental health days in Clinton states were driven by older adults, women, and white individuals. The depression rate in Clinton states began rising in January 2017. A 10-percentage point higher margin of victory for Clinton in a state predicted 0.41 more days of poor mental health per adult in December 2016 on average (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

In states that voted for Clinton, there were 54.6 million more days of poor mental health among adults in December 2016, the month following the election, compared to October 2016. Clinicians should consider that elections could cause at least transitory increases in poor mental health and tailor patient care accordingly, especially with the 2020 election upon us.

SUBMITTER: Yan BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7602772 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn the U.S. presidential election of 2016, substantial shift in voting patterns occurred relative to previous elections. Although this shift has been associated with both education and race, the extent to which this shift was related to public health status is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the extent to which county community health was associated with changes in voting between the presidential elections of 2016 and 2012.DesignEcological study with principal component analysis (PCA) using principal axis method to extract the components, then generalized linear regression.SettingGeneral community.ParticipantsAll counties in the United States.ExposuresPhysically unhealthy days, mentally unhealthy days, percent food insecure, teen birth rate, primary care physician visit rate, age-adjusted mortality rate, violent crime rate, average health care costs, percent diabetic, and percent overweight or obese.Main outcomeThe percentage of Donald Trump votes in 2016 minus percentage of Mitt Romney votes in 2012 ("net voting shift").ResultsComplete public health data was available for 3,009 counties which were included in the analysis. The mean net voting shift was 5.4% (+/- 5.8%). Of these 3,009 counties, 2,641 (87.8%) had positive net voting shift (shifted towards Trump) and 368 counties (12.2%) had negative net voting shift (shifted away from Trump). The first principal component ("unhealthy score") accounted for 68% of the total variance in the data. The unhealthy score included all health variables except primary care physician rate, violent crime rate, and health care costs. The mean unhealthy score for counties was 0.39 (SD 0.16). Higher normalized unhealthy score was associated with positive net voting shift (22.1% shift per unit unhealthy, p < 0.0001). This association was stronger in states that switched Electoral College votes from 2012 to 2016 than in other states (5.9% per unit unhealthy, p <0.0001).Conclusions and relevanceSubstantial association exists between a shift toward voting for Donald Trump in 2016 relative to Mitt Romney in 2012 and measures of poor public health. Although these results do not demonstrate causality, these results suggest a possible role for health status in political choices.

Project description:Background Anger and extreme stress can trigger potentially fatal cardiovascular events in susceptible people. Political elections, such as the 2016 US presidential election, are significant stressors. Whether they can trigger cardiac arrhythmias is unknown. Methods and Results In this retrospective case-crossover study, we linked cardiac device data, electronic health records, and historic voter registration records from 2436 patients with implanted cardiac devices. The incidence of arrhythmias during the election was compared with a control period with Poisson regression. We also tested for effect modification by demographics, comorbidities, political affiliation, and whether an individual's political affiliation was concordant with county-level election results. Overall, 2592 arrhythmic events occurred in 655 patients during the hazard period compared with 1533 events in 472 patients during the control period. There was a significant increase in the incidence of composite outcomes for any arrhythmia (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.42-2.21]), supraventricular arrhythmia (IRR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.36-2.43]), and ventricular arrhythmia (IRR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.22-2.10]) during the election relative to the control period. There was also an increase in specific types of arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation (IRR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.06-2.11]), supraventricular tachycardia (IRR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.2-6.2]), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (IRR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3-2.2]), and daily atrial fibrillation burden (P<0.001). No significant interaction was found for sex, race/ethnicity, device type, age ≥65 years, hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure, political affiliation, or concordance between individual political affiliation and county-level election results. Conclusions There was a significant increase in cardiac arrhythmias during the 2016 US presidential election. These findings suggest that exposure to stressful sociopolitical events may trigger arrhythmogenesis in susceptible people.

Project description:ImportanceThe circumstances surrounding the 2016 US presidential election have been proposed as a significant stressor in the lives of the US Latino population. Few studies to date, however, have evaluated the population health implications of the election for Latina mothers and their children.ObjectiveTo determine whether preterm births (gestational age, <37 weeks) among US Latina women increased above expected levels after the 2016 US presidential election.Design, setting, and participantsIn this national population-based study, an interrupted time series design, used to evaluate whether policies or other population-level changes interrupt a trend in an outcome, compared monthly counts of preterm births to Latina women after the 2016 presidential election with the number expected had the election not taken place. Women residing in the United States who had singleton births during the study period were included. Counts of singleton term and preterm births by month and race/ethnicity from January 1, 2009, through July 30, 2017 (32 860 727 live births), were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wonder online database. These methods were applied separately to male and female births. Data were analyzed from November 8, 2018, through May 7, 2019.ExposuresPregnancy in the 2016 US presidential election.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of male and female preterm births based on the last menstrual period.ResultsAmong the 32 860 727 live births recorded during the study period, 11.0% of male and 9.6% of female births to Latina women were preterm compared with 10.2% and 9.3%, respectively, to other women. In the 9-month period beginning with November 2016, an additional 1342 male (95% CI, 795-1889) and 995 female (95% CI, 554-1436) preterm births to Latina women were found above the expected number of preterm births had the election not occurred.Conclusions and relevanceThe 2016 US presidential election appears to have been associated with an increase in preterm births among US Latina women. Anti-immigration policies have been proposed and enforced in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election; future research should evaluate the association of these actions with population health.