Bhavsar V, Fusar-Poli P, McGuire P. Neighbourhood deprivation is positively associated with detection of the ultra-high risk (UHR) state for psychosis in South East London.
Schizophr Res 2018;
192:371-376. [PMID:
28601502 PMCID:
PMC5821699 DOI:
10.1016/j.schres.2017.06.006]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2017] [Revised: 05/27/2017] [Accepted: 06/03/2017] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Individuals 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.
AIMS
To examine neighbourhood distribution of detected UHR using cases from the OASIS service in South East London, investigating neighbourhood deprivation as an explanatory variable.
METHODS
Geographic 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.
RESULTS
Rate 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.
CONCLUSIONS
The distribution of UHR detection rates by neighbourhood is not random and may be explained in part by differences in the social environment between neighbourhoods.
Collapse