Search

Background: Employment and income are important determinants of mental health (MH), but the extent that unemployment effects are mediated by reduced income is unclear. We estimated the total effect (TE) of unemployment on MH and the controlled direct effect (CDE) not acting via income. Methods: We included adults 25–64 years from nine waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (n = 45 497/ obs = 202 297). Unemployment was defined as not being in paid employment; common mental disorder (CMD) was defined as General Health Questionnaire-12 score ≥4. We conducted causal mediation analysis using double-robust marginal structural modelling, estimating odds ratios (OR) and absolute differences for effects of unemployment on CMD in the same year, before (TE) and after (CDE) blocking the income pathway. We calculated percentage mediation by income, with bootstrapped standard errors. Results: The TE of unemployment on CMD risk was OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.57–1.76), with 7.09% (6.21–7.97) absolute difference in prevalence; equivalent CDEs were OR 1.55 (1.46–1.66) and 6.08% (5.13–7.03). Income mediated 14.22% (8.04–20.40) of the TE. Percentage mediation was higher for job losses [15.10% (6.81–23.39)] than gains [8.77% (0.36–17.19)]; it was lowest for those 25–40 years [7.99% (−2.57 to 18.51)] and in poverty [2.63% (−2.22 to 7.49)]. Conclusions: A high proportion of the short-term effect of unemployment on MH is not explained by income, particularly for younger people and those in poverty. Population attributable fractions suggested 16.49% of CMD burden was due to unemployment, with 13.90% directly attributable to job loss rather than resultant income changes. Similar analytical approaches could explore how this differs across contexts, by other factors, and consider longer-term effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In politically contested health debates, stakeholders on both sides present arguments and evidence to influence public opinion and the political agenda. The present study aimed to examine whether stakeholders in the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) debate sought to establish or undermine the acceptability of this policy through the news media and how this compared with similar policy debates in relation to tobacco and alcohol industries.Design: Quantitative and qualitative content analysis of newspaper articles discussing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation published in eleven UK newspapers between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2016, identified through the Nexis database. Direct stakeholder citations were entered in NVivo to allow inductive thematic analysis and comparison with an established typology of industry stakeholder arguments used by the alcohol and tobacco industries.Setting: UK newspapers.Participants: Proponents and opponents of SSB tax/SDIL cited in UK newspapers.Results: Four hundred and ninety-one newspaper articles cited stakeholders' (n 287) arguments in relation to SSB taxation (n 1761: 65 % supportive and 35 % opposing). Stakeholders' positions broadly reflected their vested interests. Inconsistencies arose from: changes in ideological position; insufficient clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved; policy priorities; and consistency with academic rigour. Both opposing and supportive themes were comparable with the alcohol and tobacco industry typology.Conclusions: Public health advocates were particularly prominent in the UK newspaper debate surrounding the SDIL. Advocates in future policy debates might benefit from seeking a similar level of prominence and avoiding inconsistencies by being clearer about the policy objective and mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]