4.7 Article

Associations of Housing Mobility Interventions for Children in High-Poverty Neighborhoods With Subsequent Mental Disorders During Adolescence

期刊

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.607

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) [C-CHI-00808]
  2. National Science Foundation [SES-0527615]
  3. National Institute for Child Health and Human Development [R01-HD040404, R01-HD040444]
  4. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [R49-CE000906]
  5. National Institute of Mental Health [R01-MH077026]
  6. National Institute on Aging [P30 AG012810, R01-AG031259, P01-AG005842-22S1]
  7. National Opinion Research Center's Population Research Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R24-HD051152-04]
  8. University of Chicago Center for Health Administration Studies
  9. US Department of Education/Institute of Education Sciences [R305U070006]
  10. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  11. Smith Richardson Foundation
  12. Spencer Foundation
  13. Annie E. Casey Foundation
  14. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  15. Russell Sage Foundation
  16. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  17. LIEPP (Interdisciplinary Research Center for the Evaluation of Public Policies) at Sciences Po.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IMPORTANCE Youth in high-poverty neighborhoods have high rates of emotional problems. Understanding neighborhood influences on mental health is crucial for designing neighborhood-level interventions. OBJECTIVE To perform an exploratory analysis of associations between housing mobility interventions for children in high-poverty neighborhoods and subsequent mental disorders during adolescence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Moving to Opportunity Demonstration from 1994 to 1998 randomized 4604 volunteer public housing families with 3689 children in high-poverty neighborhoods into 1 of 2 housing mobility intervention groups (a low-poverty voucher group vs a traditional voucher group) or a control group. The low-poverty voucher group (n=1430) received vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods with enhanced mobility counseling. The traditional voucher group (n=1081) received geographically unrestricted vouchers. Controls (n=1178) received no intervention. Follow-up evaluation was performed 10 to 15 years later (June 2008-April 2010) with participants aged 13 to 19 years (0-8 years at randomization). Response rates were 86.9% to 92.9%. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Presence of mental disorders from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) within the past 12 months, including major depressive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), oppositional-defiant disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and conduct disorder, as assessed post hoc with a validated diagnostic interview. RESULTS Of the 3689 adolescents randomized, 2872 were interviewed (1407 boys and 1465 girls). Compared with the control group, boys in the low-poverty voucher group had significantly increased rates of major depression (7.1% vs 3.5%; odds ratio (OR), 2.2 [95% CI, 1.2-3.9]), PTSD (6.2% vs 1.9%; OR, 3.4 [95% CI, 1.6-7.4]), and conduct disorder (6.4% vs 2.1%; OR, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.7-5.8]). Boys in the traditional voucher group had increased rates of PTSD compared with the control group (4.9% vs 1.9%, OR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.2-5.8]). However, compared with the control group, girls in the traditional voucher group had decreased rates of major depression (6.5% vs 10.9%; OR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.3-0.9]) and conduct disorder (0.3% vs 2.9%; OR, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.0-0.4]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Interventions to encourage moving out of high-poverty neighborhoods were associated with increased rates of depression, PTSD, and conduct disorder among boys and reduced rates of depression and conduct disorder among girls. Better understanding of interactions among individual, family, and neighborhood risk factors is needed to guide future public housing policy changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据