Abstract
Mental illness and mental wellbeing are related but distinct constructs. Despite this, geographical enquiry often references the two as interchangeable indicators of mental health and assumes the relationship between the two is consistent across different geographical scales. Furthermore, the importance of geography in such research is commonly assumed to be static for all age groups, despite the large body of evidence demonstrating contextual effects in age-specific populations. We leverage simultaneous measurement of a mental illness and mental wellbeing metric from Understanding Society, a UK population-based survey, and employ bivariate, cross-classified multilevel modelling to characterise the relationship between geographical context and mental health. Results provide strong evidence for contextual effects for both responses before and after covariate adjustment, with weaker evidence for area-classification and PSU-level contextual effects for the GHQ-12 after covariate adjustment. Results support a two-continua model of mental health at the individual level, but indicates that consensual benefit may be achieved across both dimensions by intervening at household and regional levels. There is also some evidence of a greater contextual effects for mental wellbeing than for mental illness. Results highlight the potential of the household as a target for intervention design for consensual benefit across both constructs. Results highlight the increased importance of geographical context for older respondents across both responses. This research supports an area-based approach to improving both mental illness and mental wellbeing in older populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
GG is supported by an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship [ES/T009101/1].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is taken from the first wave of Understanding Society, using data publicly available to researchers.
https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/series/series?id=2000053
