4.6 Article

Examining evidence for neighbourhood variation in the duration of untreated psychosis

期刊

HEALTH & PLACE
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 219-225

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.09.013

关键词

Neighbourhood; DUP; Spatial epidemiology; Psychosis; Geography

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105260557, U.1052.00.005] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust [085540] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Department of Health [RP-PG-0606-1335] Funding Source: Medline
  4. MRC [MC_U105260557] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U105260557] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0606-1335, NF-SI-0509-10215] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Family involvement in help-seeking is associated with a shorter duration of untreated psychoses [DUP], but it is unknown whether neighbourhood-level factors are also important. Methods: DUP was estimated for all cases of first-episode psychoses identified over 2 years in 33 Southeast London neighbourhoods (n=329). DUP was positively skewed and transformed to the natural logarithm scale. We fitted various hierarchical models, adopting different assumptions with regard to spatial variability of DUP, to assess whether there was evidence of neighbourhood heterogeneity in DUP, having accounted for a priori individual-level confounders. Results: Neighbourhood-level variation in DUP was negligible compared to overall variability. A non-hierarchical model with age, sex and ethnicity covariates, but without area-level random effects, provided the best fit to the data. Discussion: Neighbourhood factors do not appear to be associated with DUP, suggesting its predictors lie at individual and family levels. Our results inform mental healthcare planning, suggesting that in one urbanised area of Southeast London, where you live does not affect duration of untreated psychosis. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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