What are the mental health consequences of austerity measures in public housing? A quasi-experimental study.

Chungah Kim, Celine Teo, Andrew Nielsen, Antony Chum
{"title":"What are the mental health consequences of austerity measures in public housing? A quasi-experimental study.","authors":"Chungah Kim, Celine Teo, Andrew Nielsen, Antony Chum","doi":"10.1136/jech-2021-218324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As governments around the world implement austerity measures to reduce national deficits, there is an urgent need to investigate potential health impacts of specific measures to avoid unintended consequences. In 2013, the UK government implemented the underoccupancy penalty (ie, the bedroom tax) to reduce the national housing benefits bill, by cutting social housing subsidies for households deemed to have excess rooms. We investigated the impact of the bedroom tax on self-reported psychological distress.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (2010-2014), the sample included those who received housing subsidies, aged 16-60, living in England. Control and treatment groupings were identified on their household composition and housing situation. We used matching methods to create an exchangeable set of observations. Difference-in-differences analysis was performed to examine changes across the prereform and postreform psychological distress of the treatment and control groups, using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The implementation of the reform was associated with a moderate increase in psychological distress (0.88, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.71) among the treatment group, relative to the control group. However, the announcement was not associated with change in psychological distress (0.53, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.27).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study provides evidence that the implementation of housing austerity measures can increase psychological distress among social housing tenants. As the use of austerity measures become more widespread, policy-makers should consider supplementary interventions to ameliorate potential negative health consequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":15778,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-218324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: As governments around the world implement austerity measures to reduce national deficits, there is an urgent need to investigate potential health impacts of specific measures to avoid unintended consequences. In 2013, the UK government implemented the underoccupancy penalty (ie, the bedroom tax) to reduce the national housing benefits bill, by cutting social housing subsidies for households deemed to have excess rooms. We investigated the impact of the bedroom tax on self-reported psychological distress.

Methods: Using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (2010-2014), the sample included those who received housing subsidies, aged 16-60, living in England. Control and treatment groupings were identified on their household composition and housing situation. We used matching methods to create an exchangeable set of observations. Difference-in-differences analysis was performed to examine changes across the prereform and postreform psychological distress of the treatment and control groups, using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire.

Results: The implementation of the reform was associated with a moderate increase in psychological distress (0.88, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.71) among the treatment group, relative to the control group. However, the announcement was not associated with change in psychological distress (0.53, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.27).

Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that the implementation of housing austerity measures can increase psychological distress among social housing tenants. As the use of austerity measures become more widespread, policy-makers should consider supplementary interventions to ameliorate potential negative health consequences.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公共住房紧缩措施对心理健康有何影响?一项准实验研究。
背景:随着世界各国政府实施紧缩措施以减少国家赤字,迫切需要调查特定措施对健康的潜在影响,以避免意外后果。2013 年,英国政府通过削减对被认为拥有多余房间的家庭的社会住房补贴,实施了低入住率惩罚(即卧室税),以减少国家住房福利支出。我们调查了卧室税对自我报告的心理困扰的影响:利用英国家庭纵向研究(2010-2014 年)的数据,样本包括居住在英格兰的 16-60 岁领取住房补贴的人。根据他们的家庭组成和住房情况确定了对照组和治疗组。我们使用匹配方法创建了一组可交换的观察数据。我们使用 12 项一般健康问卷,对治疗组和对照组在改革前和改革后的心理压力变化进行了差异分析:结果:相对于对照组,改革的实施与治疗组心理压力的适度增加(0.88,95% CI 0.06 至 1.71)有关。然而,公告与心理困扰的变化无关(0.53,95% CI 0.21 至 1.27):我们的研究提供了实施住房紧缩措施会增加社会住房租户心理压力的证据。随着紧缩措施的使用越来越广泛,政策制定者应考虑采取辅助干预措施,以改善潜在的负面健康后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Early adulthood socioeconomic trajectories contribute to inequalities in adult diet quality, independent of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position Education-related inequalities in disability during the last years of life: a full population register-based study Impact of increasing workforce racial diversity on black-white disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality Gender-specific aspects of socialisation and risk of cardiovascular disease among community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study using machine learning algorithms and a conventional method Poverty trajectories and child and mother well-being outcomes in Ireland: findings from an Irish prospective cohort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1