Decomposing socioeconomic inequality in poor mental health among Iranian adult population: results from the PERSIAN cohort study

Abstract

Background: Socioeconomic inequality in mental health in Iran is poorly understood. This study aimed to assess socioeconomic inequality in poor mental health among Iranian adults. Methods: The study used the baseline data of PERSIAN cohort study including 131,813 participants from 17 geographically distinct areas of Iran. The Erreygers Concentration index (E) was used to quantify the socioeconomic inequalities in poor mental health. Moreover, we decomposed the E to identify factors contributing to the observed socioeconomic inequality in poor mental health in Iran. Results: The estimated E for poor mental health was − 0.012 (95% CI: − 0.0144, − 0.0089), indicating slightly higher concentration of mental health problem among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults in Iran. Socioeconomic inequality in poor mental health was mainly explained by gender (19.93%) and age (12.70%). Region, SES itself, and physical activity were other important factors that contributed to the concentration of poor mental health among adults with low socioeconomic status. Conclusion: There exists nearly equitable distribution in poor mental health among Iranian adults, but with important variations by gender, SES, and geography. These results suggested that interventional programs in Iran should focus on should focus more on socioeconomically disadvantaged people as a whole, with particular attention to the needs of women and those living in more socially disadvantaged regions.

Utilising quantitative methods to study the intersectionality of multiple social disadvantages in women with common mental disorders: a systematic review

“…Of the suitable 12 studies, three were conducted in the United States of America [ 28 – 30 ], two in Scotland [ 31 , 32 ], one multinational study was conducted in Russia, Poland and Czech Republic [ 33 ] and one study was conducted in each of the following countries: Brazil [ 34 ], Iran [ 35 ], Canada [ 36 ], Sweden [ 37 ], United Kingdom [ 38 ], and Czech Republic [ 39 ].…”

“…Employment status was reported in two studies – by manual or non-manual occupation in one study [ 31 ] and full-time or part-time in the other [ 38 ]. Marital status was reported in seven studies – as single / married /divorced / widowed / never married in three studies [ 28 , 33 , 35 ]; married / cohabitating / formerly married (separated, divorced, or widowed) / never married in two studies [ 34 , 36 ], couple or single in one study [ 29 ], and one-person family units / couples with children / couples without children / single-parent households / respondents living with parents in one study [ 38 ]. Financial status was reported in six studies – as low income / not low income in one study [ 36 ], report of average net wealth in one study [ 28 ], report of financial difficulties and ownership of defined household items in one study [ 33 ], household per capita income in one study [ 34 ], mean household income in one study [ 29 ], and housing tenure and car access in one study [ 38 ].…”

Correction: Decomposing socioeconomic inequality in poor mental health among Iranian adult population: results from the PERSIAN cohort study

“…Author details 1 Research Center for Environmental Determinants of Health, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.…”

“…Following the publication of the original article [ 1 ], the authors would like to correct the code of the study in the ethics approval and consent to participate statement.…”

Socioeconomic inequality in depression and anxiety and its determinants in Iranian older adults

“…The inequality in health status is avoidable in many cases through adjustable factors such as economic status, education status, employment, and living facilities [ 15 ]. A few studies have been done in Iran on the effects of socioeconomic inequality in mental health, which illustrates that this inequality is often in favor of the rich and has a relation with features such as gender, age, and employment status [ 16 – 19 ].…”