Discrimination and common mental disorder among migrant and ethnic groups: findings from a South East London Community sample

Abstract

PurposeFew studies have examined discrimination and mental health in the UK, particularly by migrant status and in urban contexts with greater demographic diversity. This study aims to (1) describe the prevalence of discrimination experiences across multiple life domains; (2) to describe associations between discrimination experiences and common mental disorder (CMD); (3) to determine whether or not the relationship between discrimination and CMD varies by migrant status and ethnicity.MethodsData on major, anticipated and everyday discrimination and CMD symptoms were collected from an ethnically diverse prospective sample of 1052 participants followed up from 2008 to 2013 in the South East London Community Health study, a population-based household survey.ResultsWith few exceptions, discrimination was most prevalent among those in the Black Caribbean group. However, those in the White Other ethnic group had similar or greater reporting major and anticipated discrimination to Black or mixed ethnic minority groups. The effects of discrimination on CMD were most pronounced for individuals who had recently migrated to the UK, an ethnically heterogeneous group, and for Black and Mixed ethnic minority groups in partially adjusted models. Prior CMD accounted for differences between the Mixed and White British ethnic groups, but the strength of the association for the most recent migrant group and the Black ethnic groups remained two or more times greater than the reference groups.ConclusionsThe strength of the relationship suggests a need for more consideration of migration status along with ethnicity in examining the impact of discrimination on mental disorder in community and clinical samples.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1191-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing 42 inflammatory markers in 321 control subjects and 887 major depressive disorder cases: BMI and other confounders and overall predictive ability for current depression

“…In the third phase, biological specimens were collected from a subset of participants, which included blood for serum separation. [30][31][32][33] MDD case/control status was characterised using the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R), which can be used to generate ICD-10 diagnoses. 34 A participant was screened positive for an MDD diagnosis if the CIS-R identified a moderate-to-severe depressive episode in any one of the three interviews.…”

Recurrence of Depression in Relation to History of Childhood Trauma and Hair Cortisol Concentration in a Community-Based Sample

“…Participants aged 16 and over were recruited during phase 1 as described previously [23] and participated in clinical interviews including the assessment of common mental disorders (CMDs). The follow-up for phase 2 was organized 8 months later and included a reassessment of CMD (detailed in [24]). Nine months after participating in phase 2, a purposive subsample of 500 participants was recruited for phase 3 and participants attended further interviews to obtain information on sociodemographic and physical characteristics as well as a reassessment of CMD.…”

NIPSA: a new scale for measuring non-illness predictors of sickness absence

“…Cultural influences can be important in predicting sickness absence behaviour. The population used for this study, based in South East London, is very culturally diverse, which is a strength, but it is also more deprived and mentally unwell compared with the rest of the UK,30 which may limit the generalisability of our results. As such, it will also be important for the NIPSA questionnaire to be translated into other languages and tested in different cultural and economic settings.…”

“…A previous study using SELCoH data has shown that this sample had similar demographic and socioeconomic indicators to UK Census Information for the catchment area 30. In order to avoid the potential issues that may arise as a result of clustering by household, only one individual from each household was randomly selected and kept in the analysis, while the remaining members of the same household were excluded.…”