No abstract

BackgroundIn Europe and elsewhere there is rising concern about inequality in health and increased prevalence of mental ill-health. Structural determinants such as welfare state arrangements may impact on levels of mental health and social inequalities. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence on whether structural determinants are associated with inequalities in mental health outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of quantitative studies published between 1996 and 2017 based on search results from the following databases Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts and Eric. Studies were included if they focused on inequalities (measured by socio-economic position and gender), structural determinants (i.e. public policies affecting the whole population) and showed a change or comparison in mental health status in one (or more) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. All studies were assessed for inclusion and study quality by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and synthesised using narrative analysis.ResultsTwenty-one articles (17 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous with regards to methodology, mental health outcomes and policy settings. More comprehensive and gender inclusive welfare states (e.g. Nordic welfare states) had better mental health outcomes, especially for women, and less gender-related inequality. Nordic welfare regimes may also decrease inequalities between lone and couple mothers. A strong welfare state does not buffer against socio-economic inequalities in mental health outcomes. Austerity measures tended to worsen mental health and increase inequalities. Area-based initiatives and educational policy are understudied.ConclusionAlthough the literature on structural determinants and inequalities in mental health is limited, our review shows some evidence supporting the causal effects of structural determinants on mental health inequalities. The lack of evidence should not be interpreted as lack of effect. Future studies should apply innovative methods to overcome the inherent methodological challenges in this area, as structural determinants potentially affect both levels of mental health and social inequalities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0879-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThere is inconsistent evidence about the association between inflammatory disorders and depression and anxiety onset in a primary care context. The study aimed to evaluate the risk of depression and anxiety within multisystem and organ-specific inflammatory disorders.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study with primary care patients from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink diagnosed with an inflammatory disorder between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2016. These patients were matched on age, gender, practice and index date with patients without an inflammatory disorder. The study exposures were seven chronic inflammatory disorders. Clinical diagnosis of depression and anxiety represented the outcome measures of interest.ResultsAmong 538 707 participants, the incidence of depression ranged from 14 per 1000 person-years (severe psoriasis) to 9 per 1000 person-years (systemic vasculitis), substantively higher compared with their comparison group (5–7 per 1000 person-years). HRs of multiple depression and anxiety events were 16% higher within inflammatory disorders (HR, 1.16, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.21, p<0.001) compared with the matched comparison group. The incidence of depression and anxiety was strongly associated with the age at inflammatory disorder onset. The overall HR estimate for depression was 1.90 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.17, p<0.001) within early-onset disorder (<40 years of age) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.09, p=0.80) within late-onset disorder (≥60 years of age).ConclusionsPrimary care patients with inflammatory disorders have elevated rates of depression and anxiety incidence, particularly those patients with early-onset inflammatory disorders. This finding may reflect the impact of the underlying disease on patients’ quality of life, although the precise mechanisms require further investigation.

BackgroundDiscrimination is a well-established stressor that is substantially associated with poor health and a known contributor to health inequalities. However, the role of discrimination in health service use is less explored. This study will take an intersectional approach to investigate differences in health service use and examine the role of discrimination experiences.MethodsData on health service use were assessed in a diverse inner London sample of 1052 participants in the South East London Community Health (SELCoH) Study. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to define classes of intersectional social status using multiple indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity and migration status. Adjusted associations between intersectional social status and discrimination experiences with health service use indicators are presented.ResultsUsing latent class analysis allowed us to identify an intersectional social status characterized by multiple disadvantage that was associated with decreased secondary physical health service use and a class characterized by both privilege and disadvantage that was associated with increased health service use for mental disorder after controlling for age, gender and health status. Anticipated discrimination was also associated with increased service use for mental disorder in adjusted models. There was no evidence to suggest that discrimination experiences were acting as a barrier to health service use.ConclusionsThis study highlights the complex ways in which discrimination experiences may increase the need for health services whilst also highlighting differences in health service use at the intersection of ethnicity, migration status and SES. Findings from this study illustrate the importance of measuring multiple levels of discrimination and taking an intersectional approach for health service use research.