The association between income inequality and adult mental health at the subnational level—a systematic review

Purpose A systematic review was undertaken to determine whether research supports: (i) an association between income inequality and adult mental health when measured at the subnational level, and if so, (ii) in a way that supports the Income Inequality Hypothesis (i.e. between higher inequality and poorer mental health) or the Mixed Neighbourhood Hypothesis (higher inequality and better mental health). Methods Systematic searches of PsycINFO, Medline and Web of Science databases were undertaken from database inception to September 2020. Included studies appeared in English-language, peer-reviewed journals and incorporated measure/s of objective income inequality and adult mental illness. Papers were excluded if they focused on highly specialised population samples. Study quality was assessed using a custom-developed tool and data synthesised using the vote-count method. Results Forty-two studies met criteria for inclusion representing nearly eight million participants and more than 110,000 geographical units. Of these, 54.76% supported the Income Inequality Hypothesis and 11.9% supported the Mixed Neighbourhood Hypothesis. This held for highest quality studies and after controlling for absolute deprivation. The results were consistent across mental health conditions, size of geographical units, and held for low/middle and high income countries. Conclusions A number of limitations in the literature were identified, including a lack of appropriate (multi-level) analyses and modelling of relevant confounders (deprivation) in many studies. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that area-level income inequality is associated with poorer mental health, and provides support for the introduction of social, economic and public health policies that ameliorate the deleterious effects of income inequality. Clinical registration number PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020181507

Incidence of schizophrenia and other psychoses in ethnic minority groups: results from the MRC AESOP Study

Background. The incidence of schizophrenia in the African-Caribbean population in England is reported to be raised. We sought to clarify whether (a) the rates of other psychotic disorders are increased, (b) whether psychosis is increased in other ethnic minority groups, and (c) whether particular age or gender groups are especially at risk. Method. We identified all people (n=568) aged 16-64 years presenting to secondary services with their first psychotic symptoms in three well-defined English areas (over a 2-year period in Southeast London and Nottingham and a 9-month period in Bristol). Standardized incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR) for all major psychosis syndromes for all main ethnic groups were calculated. Results. We found remarkably high IRRs for both schizophrenia and manic psychosis in both African-Caribbeans (schizophrenia 9.1, manic psychosis 8.0) and Black Africans (schizophrenia 5.8, manic psychosis 6.2) in men and women. IRRs in other ethnic minority groups were modestly increased as were rates for depressive psychosis and other psychoses in all minority groups. These raised rates were evident in all age groups in our study. Conclusions. Ethnic minority groups are at increased risk for all psychotic illnesses but African- Caribbeans and Black Africans appear to be at especially high risk for both schizophrenia and mania. These findings suggest that (a) either additional risk factors are operating in African- Caribbeans and Black Africans or that these factors are particularly prevalent in these groups, and that (b) such factors increase risk for schizophrenia and mania in these groups

The social underpinnings of mental distress in the time of COVID-19 – time for urgent action

We argue that predictions of a ‘tsunami’ of mental health problems as a consequence of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the lockdown are overstated; feelings of anxiety and sadness are entirely normal reactions to difficult circumstances, not symptoms of poor mental health. Some people will need specialised mental health support, especially those already leading tough lives; we need immediate reversal of years of underfunding of community mental health services. However, the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on the most disadvantaged, especially BAME people placed at risk by their social and economic conditions, were entirely predictable. Mental health is best ensured by urgently rebuilding the social and economic supports stripped away over the last decade. Governments must pump funds into local authorities to rebuild community services, peer support, mutual aid and local community and voluntary sector organisations. Health care organisations must tackle racism and discrimination to ensure genuine equal access to universal health care. Government must replace highly conditional benefit systems by something like a universal basic income. All economic and social policies must be subjected to a legally binding mental health audit. This may sound unfeasibly expensive, but the social and economic costs, not to mention the costs in personal and community suffering, though often invisible, are far greater

A comparison of clinical outcomes, service satisfaction and well-being in people using acute day units and crisis resolution teams: cohort study in England

Background For people in mental health crisis, acute day units (ADUs) provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings, often as an addition or alternative to crisis resolution teams (CRTs). There is little recent evidence about outcomes for those using ADUs, particularly compared with those receiving CRT care alone. Aims We aimed to investigate readmission rates, satisfaction and well-being outcomes for people using ADUs and CRTs. Method We conducted a cohort study comparing readmission to acute mental healthcare during a 6-month period for ADU and CRT participants. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), well-being (Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). Results We recruited 744 participants (ADU: n = 431, 58%; CRT: n = 312, 42%) across four National Health Service trusts/health regions. There was no statistically significant overall difference in readmissions: 21% of ADU participants and 23% of CRT participants were readmitted over 6 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.54–1.14). However, readmission results varied substantially by setting. At follow-up, ADU participants had significantly higher Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores (2.5, 95% CI 1.4–3.5, P < 0.001) and well-being scores (1.3, 95% CI 0.4–2.1, P = 0.004), and lower depression scores (−1.7, 95% CI −2.7 to −0.8, P < 0.001), than CRT participants. Conclusions Patients who accessed ADUs demonstrated better outcomes for satisfaction, well-being and depression, and no significant differences in risk of readmission, compared with those who only used CRTs. Given the positive outcomes for patients, and the fact that ADUs are inconsistently provided in the National Health Service, their value and place in the acute care pathway needs further consideration and research

Ethnic differences in receipt of psychological interventions in Early Intervention in Psychosis services in England – a cross-sectional study

There is some evidence of differences in psychosis care provision by ethnicity. We investigated variations in the receipt of CBTp and family intervention across ethnic groups in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) teams throughout England, where national policy mandates offering these interventions to all. We included data on 29,610 service users from the National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP), collected between 2018 and 2021. We conducted mixed effects logistic regression to examine odds ratios of receiving an intervention (CBTp, family intervention, either intervention) across 17 ethnic groups while accounting for the effect of years and variance between teams and adjusting for individual- (age, gender, occupational status) and team-level covariates (care-coordinator caseload, inequalities strategies). Compared with White British people, every minoritized ethnic group, except those of mixed Asian-White and mixed Black African-White ethnicities, had significantly lower adjusted odds of receiving CBTp. People of Black African, Black Caribbean, non-African/Caribbean Black, non-British/Irish White, and of “any other” ethnicity also experienced significantly lower adjusted odds of receiving family intervention. Pervasive inequalities in receiving CBTp for first episode psychosis exist for almost all minoritized ethnic groups, and family intervention for many groups. Investigating how these inequalities arise should be a research priority

The incidence of psychotic disorders among migrants and minority ethnic groups in Europe: Findings from the multinational EU-GEI study

BackgroundIn Europe, the incidence of psychotic disorder is high in certain migrant and minority ethnic groups (hence: 'minorities'). However, it is unknown how the incidence pattern for these groups varies within this continent. Our objective was to compare, across sites in France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Netherlands, the incidence rates for minorities and the incidence rate ratios (IRRs, minorities v. the local reference population).MethodsThe European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study was conducted between 2010 and 2015. We analyzed data on incident cases of non-organic psychosis (International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition, codes F20-F33) from 13 sites.ResultsThe standardized incidence rates for minorities, combined into one category, varied from 12.2 in Valencia to 82.5 per 100 000 in Paris. These rates were generally high at sites with high rates for the reference population, and low at sites with low rates for the reference population. IRRs for minorities (combined into one category) varied from 0.70 (95% CI 0.32-1.53) in Valencia to 2.47 (95% CI 1.66-3.69) in Paris (test for interaction: p = 0.031). At most sites, IRRs were higher for persons from non-Western countries than for those from Western countries, with the highest IRRs for individuals from sub-Saharan Africa (adjusted IRR = 3.23, 95% CI 2.66-3.93).ConclusionsIncidence rates vary by region of origin, region of destination and their combination. This suggests that they are strongly influenced by the social context

Social disadvantage, linguistic distance, ethnic minority status and first-episode psychosis: Results from the EU-GEI case-control study

BackgroundEthnic minority groups in Western countries face an increased risk of psychotic disorders. Causes of this long-standing public health inequality remain poorly understood. We investigated whether social disadvantage, linguistic distance and discrimination contributed to these patterns.MethodsWe used case-control data from the EUropean network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study, carried out in 16 centres in six countries. We recruited 1130 cases and 1497 population-based controls. Our main outcome measure was first-episode ICD-10 psychotic disorder (F20-F33), and exposures were ethnicity (white majority, black, mixed, Asian, North-African, white minority and other), generational status, social disadvantage, linguistic distance and discrimination. Age, sex, paternal age, cannabis use, childhood trauma and parental history of psychosis were included as a priori confounders. Exposures and confounders were added sequentially to multivariable logistic models, following multiple imputation for missing data.ResultsParticipants from any ethnic minority background had crude excess odds of psychosis [odds ratio (OR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-2.43], which remained after adjustment for confounders (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.31-1.98). This was progressively attenuated following further adjustment for social disadvantage (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22-1.89) and linguistic distance (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.95-1.57), a pattern mirrored in several specific ethnic groups. Linguistic distance and social disadvantage had stronger effects for first- A nd later-generation groups, respectively.ConclusionSocial disadvantage and linguistic distance, two potential markers of sociocultural exclusion, were associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder, and adjusting for these led to equivocal risk between several ethnic minority groups and the white majority

Jumping to conclusions, general intelligence, and psychosis liability: Findings from the multi-centre EU-GEI case-control study

BackgroundThe 'jumping to conclusions' (JTC) bias is associated with both psychosis and general cognition but their relationship is unclear. In this study, we set out to clarify the relationship between the JTC bias, IQ, psychosis and polygenic liability to schizophrenia and IQ.MethodsA total of 817 first episode psychosis patients and 1294 population-based controls completed assessments of general intelligence (IQ), and JTC, and provided blood or saliva samples from which we extracted DNA and computed polygenic risk scores for IQ and schizophrenia.ResultsThe estimated proportion of the total effect of case/control differences on JTC mediated by IQ was 79%. Schizophrenia polygenic risk score was non-significantly associated with a higher number of beads drawn (B = 0.47, 95% CI-0.21 to 1.16, p = 0.17); whereas IQ PRS (B = 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-0.76, p &lt; 0.001) significantly predicted the number of beads drawn, and was thus associated with reduced JTC bias. The JTC was more strongly associated with the higher level of psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) in controls, including after controlling for IQ (B =-1.7, 95% CI-2.8 to-0.5, p = 0.006), but did not relate to delusions in patients.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the JTC reasoning bias in psychosis might not be a specific cognitive deficit but rather a manifestation or consequence, of general cognitive impairment. Whereas, in the general population, the JTC bias is related to PLEs, independent of IQ. The work has the potential to inform interventions targeting cognitive biases in early psychosis

Lichenometric dating (lichenometry) and the biology of the lichen genus rhizocarpon:challenges and future directions

Lichenometric dating (lichenometry) involves the use of lichen measurements to estimate the age of exposure of various substrata. Because of low radial growth rates and considerable longevity, species of the crustose lichen genus Rhizocarpon have been the most useful in lichenometry. The primary assumption of lichenometry is that colonization, growth and mortality of Rhizocarpon are similar on surfaces of known and unknown age so that the largest thalli present on the respective faces are of comparable age. This review describes the current state of knowledge regarding the biology of Rhizocarpon and considers two main questions: (1) to what extent does existing knowledge support this assumption; and (2) what further biological observations would be useful both to test its validity and to improve the accuracy of lichenometric dates? A review of the Rhizocarpon literature identified gaps in knowledge regarding early development, the growth rate/size curve, mortality, regeneration, competitive effects, colonization, and succession on rock surfaces. The data suggest that these processes may not be comparable on different rock surfaces, especially in regions where growth rates and thallus turnover are high. In addition, several variables could differ between rock surfaces and influence maximum thallus size, including rate and timing of colonization, radial growth rates, environmental differences, thallus fusion, allelopathy, thallus mortality, colonization and competition. Comparative measurements of these variables on surfaces of known and unknown age may help to determine whether the basic assumptions of lichenometry are valid. Ultimately, it may be possible to take these differences into account when interpreting estimated dates