Neighbourhood communalities and ultra-high risk psychosis: An emergent literature

Kirkbride, James; Pérez, Jesús; Jones, Peter B.

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.06.021

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Kirkbride et al (2015) carried out a multi-level analysis accounting for individual characteristics and found differences in the spatial distribution of UHR compared to controls, and reported that this distribution was predicted by deprivation, ethnic density, and proportion of single-parent households; however, after all adjustments, a negative association with deprivation was found, with individuals from neighbourhoods with greater proportion of deprived households experiencing a relative reduction in the odds of UHR (OR:0.86,95%CI:0.75,0.98). These mixed findings might be explained by an underlying non-linearity in the relationship between neighbourhood deprivation and detection rate for UHR ( Kirkbride et al, 2016a ); however in our analysis we found good evidence for a linear association between UHR detection rate and neighbourhood detection.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Neighbourhood deprivation is positively associated with detection of the ultra-high risk (UHR) state for psychosis in South East London

Bhavsar

Fusar‐Poli

McGuire

2018

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIndividuals are defined as being at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis based on a combination of attenuated psychotic symptoms, help-seeking behaviour, genetic risk, and social/occupational deterioration. Limited evidence is available on whether UHR detection differs by neighbourhood, and potential explanations.AimsTo examine neighbourhood distribution of detected UHR using cases from the OASIS service in South East London, investigating neighbourhood deprivation as an explanatory variable.MethodsGeographic data were collected on patients who met UHR criteria over a fourteen-year period, at the neighbourhood (lower super output area, LSOA) level. Rates were calculated based on cases and age-specific population estimates. Poisson regression assessed associations between UHR rate and neighbourhood deprivation, and with particular deprivation domains, adjusting for referrals for UHR assessment, population density, and proportions of non-White people, and young single people.ResultsRate of UHR detection was statistically related to neighbourhood deprivation, but referral rate was not: compared to the least deprived neighbourhoods, the most deprived neighbourhoods had a greater than two-fold increase in incidence rate of detected UHR (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR): 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21,3.67). In contrast, a small, imprecise association was observed for referral for assessment for UHR (adjusted IRR: 1.26 (95%CI: 0.84,1.89)). Evidence was also found for associations of UHR detection rate with domains of deprivation pertaining to health and barriers to services.ConclusionsThe distribution of UHR detection rates by neighbourhood is not random and may be explained in part by differences in the social environment between neighbourhoods.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%