Psychometric validation of the self-identification of having a mental illness (SELF-I) scale and the relationship with stigma and help-seeking among young people.

PURPOSE: Self-identification of having a mental illness has been shown to be an important factor underpinning help-seeking behaviour and may mediate the relationship between personal stigma and mental health service use. This study validates a new scale for the self-identification of having a mental illness among a non-clinical, community cohort of young people in the UK. METHODS: Following consultation with a group of young person experts with experience of mental health problems, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the self-identification of mental illness scale (SELF-I) among 423 young people aged 13-24 years who are part of an ongoing prospective community cohort. We performed test retest reliability among a subset of 53 participants. Psychometric validation for the scale used measures of Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Item performance was assessed along and in relation with each covariate. RESULTS: The SELF-I demonstrated robust psychometric properties including high test-retest reliability (0.95) and good internal consistency (0.87 as determined by the Cronbach's alpha). The inter-total correlations for each item, which ranged from 0.62 to 0.74, supported keeping all items in the scale. Reporting greater psychiatric symptomatology via the SDQ (ß: 0.82 95% confidence interval 0.40, 1.23), psychotic-like experiences (ß: 0.37 95% confidence interval 0.14, 0.59), and use of mental health services (ß: 0.92 95% confidence interval 0.71, 1.13) were associated with a greater self-perception as having a mental illness (p < 0.05), providing evidence of convergent validity. As expected, we found that less intended stigmatising behaviour was associated with greater self-perceptions of having a mental illness (B: 0.18, 95% CI 0.07, 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The SELF-I scale provides a method to gather insight into how young people, who may not identify as service users, perceive their own mental state and potential risk for developing a mental illness. This can be important for understanding perceived need for help and likelihood of using services among those with mental health problems.

Income inequality and mental illness-related morbidity and resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the association between income inequality and mental health have shown mixed results, probably due to methodological heterogeneity. By dealing with such heterogeneity through a systematic review and meta-analysis, we examine the association between income inequality, mental health problems, use of mental health services, and resilience (defined as the ability to cope with adversity). METHODS: We searched the Global Health, PsychARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, Embase and MEDLINE databases up to July 6, 2016, for quantitative studies of the association of income inequality with prevalence or incidence of mental disorders or mental health problems, use of mental health services, and resilience. Eligible studies used standardised instruments at the individual level, and income inequality at the aggregated, contextual, and ecological level. We extracted study characteristics, sampling, exposure, outcomes, statistical modelling, and parameters from articles. Because several studies did not provide enough statistical information to be included in a meta-analysis, we did a narrative synthesis to summarise results with studies categorised as showing either a positive association, mixed results, or no association. The primary outcome in the random-effects meta-analysis was mental health-related morbidity, defined as the prevalence or incidence of any mental health problem. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016036377. FINDINGS: Our search identified 15 615 non-duplicate references, of which 113 were deemed potentially relevant and were assessed for eligibility, leading to the inclusion of 27 studies in the qualitative synthesis. Nine articles found a positive association between income inequality and the prevalence or incidence of mental health problems; ten articles found mixed results, with positive association in some subgroups and non-significant or negative association in other subgroups; and eight articles found no association between income inequality and mental health problems. Of the nine articles included in our meta-analysis, one reported a positive association between income inequality and mental health problems, six reported mixed results, and two reported no association. Pooled Cohen's d effect sizes for the association between income inequality and any mental disorder or mental health problems were 0·06 (95% CI 0·01-0·11) for any mental disorder, and 0·12 (0·05-0·20) for depressive disorders. Our meta-regression analysis showed that none of the factors considered (sample size, contextual level at which income inequality was assessed, quality assessment, type of instruments, and individual income as control variable) explained heterogeneity between studies (I2 89·3%; p<0·0001). Only one study investigated the association between income inequality and resilience; it found greater income inequality was associated with higher prevalence of depression only among individuals with low income. The only study of the role of income inequality as a determinant of the use of mental health services reported no association. INTERPRETATION: Income inequality negatively affects mental health but the effect sizes are small and there is marked heterogeneity among studies. If this association is causal and growing income inequality does lead to an increase in the prevalence of mental health problems, then its reduction could result in a significant improvement in population wellbeing. FUNDING: None.

Intimate partner violence and new-onset depression: a longitudinal study of women's childhood and adult histories of abuse.

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that women victims of intimate partner violence are at increased risk for poor mental health. This research disentangled the effect of partner violence on new-onset depression and psychosis spectrum symptoms from effects of child maltreatment and other confounding factors, including substance abuse and antisocial personality. METHODS: Participants were 1,052 mothers involved in the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study, a nationally representative cohort of families followed prospectively. To test the directionality of associations between partner violence and depression, only women without a history of depression at the beginning of the study were considered (n = 978). Partner violence and mental health were assessed during face-to-face interviews with women across three time points. RESULTS: Four of 10 women reported being the victim of violence from their partner in a 10-year period. They represent 33% of our cohort and they account for 51% of new-onset depression. These women had a twofold increase in their risk of suffering from new-onset depression once the effect of childhood maltreatment, socioeconomic deprivation, antisocial personality, and young motherhood were controlled. Women who were abused both in childhood and adulthood were four to seven times more likely to suffer from depression than never-abused women. We observed similar associations with psychosis spectrum symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Women victims of partner violence account for more than their share of depression. Findings strengthen existing evidence that partner violence independently contributes to women's poor mental health. Psychological difficulties among a considerable number of women could be reduced by stopping partner violence.