Table2_Gentrification and its association with health inequalities in Barcelona (2011–2017).docx

BackgroundPrior studies have reported conflicting findings on the impact of gentrification of neighborhood residents. While some suggest it could worsen mental health, others indicate improved self-perceived health, although this effect may vary among social groups. This study aimed to determine health inequities, according to socioeconomic position, among residents of different neighborhoods of Barcelona between 2011 and 2017, considering the intensity of the gentrification process.MethodsObservational study with two transversal cuts (2011 and 2017). Neighborhoods were categorized into three groups based on the intensity of gentrification: intensive, moderate-mild, and no gentrification processes. We fitted Poisson robust models to estimate the prevalence ratio (PR) of poor self-reported and poor mental health according to socioeconomic position (social class III vs. I). We then calculated relative differences between 2011 and 2017 through the interaction between the year and socioeconomic position (PRi). The calculations were adjusted for age and household disposable income in the neighborhood and were stratified by sex.ResultsIn neighborhoods undergoing moderate or mild gentrification during the study period, we found widening inequities in mental health between the most disadvantaged social class and the most privileged social class. Between 2011 and 2017, relative differences in poor mental health increased in moderate-low gentrification neighborhoods [women: PRi: 2.51 (1.52–4.17); men: PRi: 1.99 (1.09–3.61)], equivalent to an increase of 12.9 and 11.5 percentage points, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the other neighborhoods.DiscussionThe increase in mental health inequalities observed among residents of transitional neighborhoods could be explained by factors such as residential insecurity, eviction from the neighborhood, and rising housing prices.</p

Table1_Gentrification and its association with health inequalities in Barcelona (2011–2017).docx

BackgroundPrior studies have reported conflicting findings on the impact of gentrification of neighborhood residents. While some suggest it could worsen mental health, others indicate improved self-perceived health, although this effect may vary among social groups. This study aimed to determine health inequities, according to socioeconomic position, among residents of different neighborhoods of Barcelona between 2011 and 2017, considering the intensity of the gentrification process.MethodsObservational study with two transversal cuts (2011 and 2017). Neighborhoods were categorized into three groups based on the intensity of gentrification: intensive, moderate-mild, and no gentrification processes. We fitted Poisson robust models to estimate the prevalence ratio (PR) of poor self-reported and poor mental health according to socioeconomic position (social class III vs. I). We then calculated relative differences between 2011 and 2017 through the interaction between the year and socioeconomic position (PRi). The calculations were adjusted for age and household disposable income in the neighborhood and were stratified by sex.ResultsIn neighborhoods undergoing moderate or mild gentrification during the study period, we found widening inequities in mental health between the most disadvantaged social class and the most privileged social class. Between 2011 and 2017, relative differences in poor mental health increased in moderate-low gentrification neighborhoods [women: PRi: 2.51 (1.52–4.17); men: PRi: 1.99 (1.09–3.61)], equivalent to an increase of 12.9 and 11.5 percentage points, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the other neighborhoods.DiscussionThe increase in mental health inequalities observed among residents of transitional neighborhoods could be explained by factors such as residential insecurity, eviction from the neighborhood, and rising housing prices.</p

Translation of 1st and 2nd order constructs and interpretation through 3rd order constructs and sources.

<p>*It is not state in a particular paper but emerged when translating the papers from different countries.</p>▵<p>The numbers correspond to the numbers of the 35 included in the review as they are presented in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0089554#pone-0089554-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. Lower numbers indicate newere studies and vice versa.</p

Practical implications of the results of the synthesis.

<p>Practical implications of the results of the synthesis.</p

Ecological model of the factors affecting the implementation of PP&HP activities by primary care professionals.

<p>Ecological model of the factors affecting the implementation of PP&HP activities by primary care professionals.</p

Study characteristics.

<p>GPs = General Practitioners (physicians); NPs = Nurse practitioners.</p><p>*Studies focused on the elderly.</p

Flow-chart of the systematic review.

<p>Flow-chart of the systematic review.</p

Venn diagram representation of shared richness at a distance of 0.03.

<p>Venn diagram representation of shared richness at a distance of 0.03.</p

Observed and predicted richness.

<p>Observed richness is presented, for each location, as the number of OTUs defined at clustering distances of 0.03, 0.05 and 0.1. Predicted richness is presented as the values of the Ace and Chao1 diversity estimators, at the same clustering distances.</p

Schematic representation of the relative abundance of families described in Hall and ICU samples.

<p>Schematic representation of the relative abundance of families described in Hall and ICU samples.</p