Dataset Information

Which is most important for mental health: Money, poverty, or paid work? A fixed-effects analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The relative importance of income, poverty and unemployment status for mental health is unclear, and understanding this has implications for income and welfare policy design. We aimed to assess the association between changes in these exposures and mental health.

Methods

We measured effects of three transition exposures between waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study from 2010/11-2019/20 (n=38,697, obs=173,859): income decreases/increases, moving in/out of poverty, and job losses/gains. The outcome was General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), which measures likelihood of common mental disorder (CMD) as a continuous (GHQ-36) and binary measure (score ≥4 = case). We used fixed-effects linear and linear probability models to adjust for time invariant and time-varying confounders. To investigate effect modification, we stratified analyses by age, sex and highest education.

Results

A 10% income decrease/increase was associated with a 0.02% increase (95% CI 0.00, 0.04) and 0.01% reduction (95% CI -0.03, 0.02) in likelihood of CMD respectively. Effect sizes were larger for moving into poverty (+1.8% [0.2, 3.5]), out of poverty (-1.8%, [-3.2, -0.3]), job loss (+15.8%, [13.6, 18.0]) and job gain (-11.4%, [-14.4, -8.4]). The effect of new poverty was greater for women (+2.3% [0.8, 3.9] versus +1.2% [-1.1, 3.5] for men) but the opposite was true for job loss (+17.8% [14.4, 21.2] for men versus +13.5% [9.8, 17.2] for women). There were no clear differences by age, but those with least education experienced the largest effects from poverty transitions, especially moving out of poverty (-2.9%, [-5.7, -0.0]).

Conclusions

Moving into unemployment was most strongly associated with CMD, with poverty also important but income effects generally much smaller. Men appear most sensitive to employment transitions, but poverty may have larger impacts on women and those with least education. As the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, minimising unemployment as well as poverty is crucial for population mental health.

SUBMITTER: Kromydas T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8455855 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Overcrowding has been regarded as indicating material deprivation and treated as a proxy measure for individual socioeconomic status. Conventionally, 'persons per room' (PPR) has been employed to identify overcrowded households in UK survey data, though the 'bedroom standard' (BS) approach or the 'modified bedroom standard' (MBS) approach has been thought to capture overcrowded households better. Little is known about which overcrowding measure will perform well in regard to construct and face validity. In this work, associations between three overcrowding measures and socioeconomic (income and household tenure status) and health (satisfied with health and GHQ12) indicators were assessed, using the UK Household Longitudinal Study Wave 6 data. PPR, BS and MBS were derived using relevant housing grid information and housing information from the dataset, which were aggregated at a household level (N?=?18,848). Raw scores were categorised into 'under occupied (rooms?<?people)', 'balanced (rooms?=?people)', 'overcrowded (rooms?<?people)' according to an established cut-off point for each overcrowding measure. Kappa coefficient was used to assess the level of agreement between overcrowding measures. Construct validity of the measures were tested against log-transformed household equivalised income and housing tenure status as well as with each component of overcrowding measures. Using individual data (N?=?38,455), face validity of the overcrowding measures was tested against satisfaction with health and mental health indicated by GHQ12. Each overcrowding measure has a fair agreement with the others (kappa?=?0.44, p<0.001). All overcrowding measures were significantly correlated with income and household tenure in a similar manner. However, components of overcrowding measures were associated differently to these socioeconomic indicators, while they were better correlated with satisfaction with health compared to GHQ12, showing a complex aspect of overcrowding measures. In sum, use of PPR as a socioeconomic indicator is reasonable. However, given the complexity of the mechanism of health inequalities, the relevant household information is required to understand the link.