4.6 Article

Reductions in the United Kingdom's Government Housing Benefit and Symptoms of Depression in Low-Income Households

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 184, Issue 6, Pages 421-429

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kww055

Keywords

depression; housing; mental health; natural experiment

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. European Research Council [313590-HRES]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Housing security is an important determinant of mental ill health. We used a quasinatural experiment to evaluate this association, comparing the prevalence of mental ill health in the United Kingdom before and after the government's April 2011 reduction in financial support for low-income persons who rent private-sector housing (mean reduction of approximately A 1,220 pound ($2,315) per year). Data came from the United Kingdom's Annual Population Survey, a repeated quarterly cross-sectional survey. We focused our analysis on renters in the private sector, disaggregating data between an intervention group receiving the government's Housing Benefit (n = 36,859) and a control group not receiving the Housing Benefit (n = 142,205). The main outcome was a binary measure of self-reported mental health problems. After controlling for preexisting time trends, we observed that between April 2011 and March 2013, the prevalence of depressive symptoms among private renters receiving the Housing Benefit increased by 1.8 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 1.0, 2.7) compared with those not receiving the Housing Benefit. Our models estimated that approximately 26,000 (95% confidence interval: 14,000, 38,000) people newly experienced depressive symptoms in association with the cuts to the Housing Benefit. We conclude that reducing housing support to low-income persons in the private rental sector increased the prevalence of depressive symptoms in the United Kingdom.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available