Muslim Young Adult Mental Health and the 2016 US Presidential Election

Abelson, Sara; Lipson, Sarah Ketchen; Zhou, Sasha; Eisenberg, Daniel

doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3694

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the 2016 presidential election was associated with a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric, policy, and hate crimes (Musu et al, 2019). In HMS data, we found that the election was associated with a significant rise in the proportion of Muslim students experiencing mental health symptoms in the 14 months postelection compared with the 14 months prior (Abelson et al, 2020). More recently, racism and acts of violence against Asian American/Pacific Islanders (AAPI) have increased.…”

Section: Public Policy-level Factorsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Mental Health in College Populations: A Multidisciplinary Review of What Works, Evidence Gaps, and Paths Forward

Abelson

Lipson

Eisenberg

2021

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mental health of students has become one of the top concerns in higher education. The number of students reporting distress and seeking services has dramatically increased, and colleges and universities are struggling to address these challenges. A rich and growing body of research documents the scope of the problem and potential interventions to address it, but this literature is scattered across a variety of academic fields. This chapter aims to bring coherence to this large volume of information through a detailed review of programs, services, practices, and policies that influence student mental health. The review is organized around a socioecological framework, considering interventions at the individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and public policy levels. It highlights strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the evidence. The chapter concludes with recommendations for enhancing how research and data can inform practice moving forward. A more evidence-informed approach is needed to address the growing challenges of student mental health in higher education.

show abstract

Section: Public Policy-level Factorsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Mental Health in College Populations: A Multidisciplinary Review of What Works, Evidence Gaps, and Paths Forward

Abelson

Lipson

Eisenberg

2021

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, research on the impact of presidential elections on health has consistently found that elections matter to peoples’ health. Given the unprecedented nature of the 2016 election, it should not come as a surprise that a flurry of studies have emerged on the role of the 2016 presidential election and health (Hoyt, et al, 2018; Gonzalez et al 2018; Morey et al 2021; Krueger, Westmoreland, Choi, Harper, Lightfoot, Hammack, and Meyer 2021; Abelson et al 2020; Roche and Jacobson 2019; DeJonckheere, Fisher, and Chang 2018; Yan, Hsia, Yeung, and Sloan 2021; Neupert, Bellingtier, and Smith 2021). Across many different research designs, scholars have consistently found that the 2016 election impacted health in important ways in the United States.…”

Section: Previous Research and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, while previous research has examined the 2008 (Stanton et al 2010; Brown et al, 2021), 2012 (Ben-Ezra, et al, 2013), and 2016 (Hoyt, Zeiders, Chakua, Toomey, and Nair 2018; Gonzalez et al 2018; Morey et al 2021; Krueger, Westmoreland, Choi, Harper, Lightfoot, Hammack, and Meyer 2021; Abelson et al 2020; Roche and Jacobson 2019; DeJonckheere, Fisher, and Chang 2018; Yan, Hsia, Yeung, and Sloan 2021; Neupert, Bellingtier, and Smith 2021) presidential elections, little research has examined the impact of the 2020 election on the health of Americans. This lacuna is especially important given how emotionally-charged and contentious the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath were (Weinschenk, van der Linden, and Panagopoulos 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examining multiple dimensions of health in the same study is also valuable because it allows for a direct comparison of whether election-related variables have similar effects across different facets of health. Finally, in contrast to many previous studies on elections, which often infer the impact of elections on health by comparing pre and post-election data on a health measure of interest (see, e.g., Stanton et al 2010; Abelson et al 2020; Roche and Jacobson 2019; DeJonckheere, Fisher, and Chang 2018; Brown, Solazzo, and Gorman 2021; Gonzalez, Ramirez, and Galupo 2018; Krueger et al 2021; Rosman et al 2021; Hoyt, et al, 2018), we measure two individual-level variables related to the 2020 election directly—vote choice (i.e., voting for the candidate who lost the election) and (dis)agreement that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election—and we examine their impacts on changes in self-rated health. We are not aware of previous studies that have measured an individual’s acceptance of election results and examined how this orientation impacts general and mental health.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health and Election Outcomes: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Panagopoulos

Weinschenk

2022

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research indicates that political developments and events can have important implications for health. In this study, we use data from a large, nationally representative survey ( N = 1750) fielded in December 2020 to understand how the 2020 Presidential Election impacted self-reported health ratings. Several important findings emerge. First, many Americans report that their mental (14%) and general (6%) health has worsened compared to before the 2020 presidential election; similar number of Americans report improvements to their mental (15%) and general (8%) health. Second, those who voted for Trump and who disagree that Biden won the election are significantly less likely than their counterparts to report better mental, but not general, health compared to before the 2020 election. These relationships persist even in the context of a wide range of controls, including demographics, political predispositions, and perceptions of polarization.

show abstract

“…The 2016 election brought about broad shifts in attitudes and policies related specifically to immigration and more broadly toward people of other national and religious backgrounds, including Muslims. Abelson et al documented an increase in clinically significant mental health symptoms after the election for Muslim college students relative to non-Muslim students.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Children’s Health Is Too Often Ignored in Elections—Here Is Evidence to Help Change That

Galbraith

Carroll

2020

JAMA Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When elections focus on health policy, children are too often ignored. This is as true during the present election cycle as any other. Because children do not vote, are disproportionately poor and disenfranchised, and usually inc ur lower health care costs than older adults, their health issues are given less attention in public policy debates. Very few Democratic Congressional campaign websites discuss pediatric health policies; even fewer Republican ones do. 1 It is troubling that candidates would neglect issues directly affecting the current and future health and well-being of more than 73 million Americans-more than one-fifth of the US population. 2,3 Worse, child health can be indirectly impacted by adult-focused policies, but this issue is often considered after the fact. While we may not be able to directly change how candidates focus on these issues, we can offer them the evidence they need to do so.To call attention to child health as an important policy issue and provide data to inform the decision-making of voters and policy makers, JAMA Pediatrics issued a Call for Papers on Election-Year Policies and Children's Health last year. The resulting submissions, highlighted herein, focus on a range of significant issues. Some articles point out underrecognized or unaddressed topics in child health and help characterize the problem and the populations affected, providing visibility and evidence to encourage policy makers to take action. Other studies evaluate the impact of existing policies to examine which may be beneficial and which may not, providing evidence to strengthen the former and reconsider the latter.Children spend much of their time in school, and school policies impact child health. School reopening during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has generated considerable debate. Kroshus et al 4 highlighted the factors affecting whether parents intend to keep their children home from school during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Miller et al 5 found that a school-based, coach-led gender violence prevention program for middle school athletes led to increases in positive bystander behaviors and reductions in reported relationship abuse downstream. A study by Nance et al 6 reminds us that, even when mass shootings occur beyond school walls, children are involved 29% of the time and more than 90% of shootings occur within a mile of a school or other place where children congregate.

show abstract

Muslim Young Adult Mental Health and the 2016 US Presidential Election

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Mental Health in College Populations: A Multidisciplinary Review of What Works, Evidence Gaps, and Paths Forward

Mental Health in College Populations: A Multidisciplinary Review of What Works, Evidence Gaps, and Paths Forward

Health and Election Outcomes: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Children’s Health Is Too Often Ignored in Elections—Here Is Evidence to Help Change That

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About