Neighbourhood socioeconomic indicators and depressive symptoms in the Czech Republic: a population based study

Abstract

Conclusions:The effects of neighbourhood characteristics in this study were largely explained by individual socioeconomic variables.

Socioeconomic inequalities in health in Central and Eastern Europe: synthesis of results of eight new studies

“…These results underlined that area-level analyses can be used to obtain timely, detailed and nationally representative estimates of the association between mortality and socioeconomic indicators. Pikhartova et al (2009) provides evidence to support this assumption in the Czech case. The authors studied the large differences between deprived and non-deprived areas in the prevalence of depressive symptoms.…”

“…2008; Leinsalu et al 2009). (Habibov 2009;Habicht et al 2009;Pikhartova et al 2009;Richter et al 2009;Rosicova et al 2009;Skodova et al 2009;Slachtová et al 2009;Todorova et al 2009 Leinsalu et al 2009). This type of data has a number of drawbacks, especially the "numerator-denominator bias" (Jasilionis et al 2009).…”

Suicidal ideation and associated factors by sex in Korean adults: a population-based cross-sectional survey

“…Third, we assume that individual-level and group-level characteristics independently affect suicidal ideation. However, characteristics at these two levels may interact (Koller et al 2009;Pikhartova et al 2009), so contextual characteristics should be also considered in future studies. Additionally, we only showed the results for a limited number of factors, but in further studies, other factors should be considered such as…”

Drinking Pattern, Abstention and Problem Drinking as Risk Factors for Depressive Symptoms: Evidence from Three Urban Eastern European Populations

“…The following covariates were used in analyses: age, marital status (married/cohabiting [reference category], single, divorced/separated and widowed) [40], [41], educational attainment (university, secondary/vocational [reference category], primary or less) [42], [43], material deprivation level score [44], [45] which was based on three questions concerning how often the participants' household did not have enough money to buy food or clothes, or to pay bills such as housing, heating and electricity, with the possible answers “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “often” or “all the time”, coded as 0–4. These items were summed and then categorised into three groups: low (reference category; scores of 0–1), intermediate (scores of 2–8) and high (scores of 9–12).…”