The Impact of Socio-Economic Status on Mental Health
Chapter One
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The general objective of this study is to explore the impact of low socio-economic status on mental health. Other specific objectives of this study are to:
- To examine the effect of low socioeconomic status on psychiatric disorders
- To assess the relationship between standard of living and discrimination against the poor.
- To investigate the link between low socioeconomic status and homelessness in Oto-Awori LCDA.
- To find out the health implications of living in low socioeconomic status.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter reviews the literature on the impact of socio-economic status on mental health. It discusses issues arising from the topic of discuss as viewed from different perspectives, with a view of giving a theoretical and empirical foundation to the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research has shown that differences in health outcomes exist at every gradient of socioeconomic status, not just in those who fall at the extreme ends of the spectrum (Adler et al., 1994; Fletcher & Wolfe, 2014; Phelan & Link, 2013; Vyncke et al., 2013). However, socioeconomic status is very frequently controlled for in studies of disease outcomes and much less research has been done using socioeconomic status as an important etiological factor in itself (Adler et al., 1994). It is plausible that socioeconomic status shapes life conditions which then, in turn, affect health (Adler & Rehkopf, 2008). To understand this relationship between socioeconomic status and health outcomes, we must examine the differential life conditions of different SES groups that may possibly mediate this relationship between socioeconomic status and health. The most notable of studies that demonstrate this SES-health gradient is the historical Whitehall study (Marmot, Shipley, & Rose, 1984). The study compared mortality rates among different “classes” of British civil servants. The classes used in the analysis were “unskilled laborers”, “clerical workers”, “professionals”, “executives”, and “administrators”. Results showed relative risks of death corresponding to the social class one belonged to, so that those at the bottom had the highest risk. Furthermore, differences existed across all groups in a consistent pattern: the lower one’s socioeconomic status, the higher their risk of mortality. All subjects were office-based civil servants and the relative homogeneity across these groups made the finding of increased mortality based on lower socioeconomic status even more shocking. This evidence suggests that the effect of socioeconomic status on health does not only exist for those who fall below the poverty threshold, but rather people at every socioeconomic level.
Psychiatric disorders have been consistently shown to be more common among people in lower social classes (Murali & Oyebode, 2004). Historical sociological research by Faris and Dunham (1939) showed that high rates of mental disorder emerged in the most dilapidated and run-down areas of the city (Faris & Dunham, 1939), while Hollingshead & Redlich (1953) provided evidence for a significant relationship between social class and prevalence of psychiatric disorders (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1953). Data from the Alameda County Study, a community-based longitudinal study of psychological and social factors and their role in health demonstrated a graded relationship between socioeconomic status and the prevalence and incidence of depression (Everson et al., 2002).
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design
The researcher used descriptive research survey design in building up this project work the choice of this research design was considered appropriate because of its advantages of identifying attributes of a large population from a group of individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study sought to a critical analysis of the impact of socio-economic status on mental health.
Sources of data collection
Data were collected from two main sources namely:
(i)Primary source and
(ii)Secondary source
Primary source:
These are materials of statistical investigation which were collected by the research for a particular purpose. They can be obtained through a survey, observation questionnaire or as experiment; the researcher has adopted the questionnaire method for this study.
Secondary source:
These are data from textbook Journal handset etc. they arise as byproducts of the same other purposes. Example administration, various other unpublished works and write ups were also used.
Population of the study
Population of a study is a group of persons or aggregate items, things the researcher is interested in getting information a critical analysis of impact of socio-economic status on mental health. 200 residents of Oto-Awori Local Council Development Area of Lagos State (LCDA) were selected randomly by the researcher as the population of the study.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Introduction
DATA ANALYSIS
The data collected from the respondents were analyzed in tabular form with simple percentage for easy understanding.
A total of 133(one hundred and thirty three) questionnaires were distributed and 133 questionnaires were returned.
Question 1
Gender distribution of the respondents.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was to ascertain a critical analysis of the impact of socio-economic status on mental health.
In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations are made, which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefit in addressing the growing challenges of mental disorders.
Summary
This study aimed at having a critical analysis of the impact of socio-economic status on mental health. Four objectives were raised. These objectives include: to examine the effect of low socioeconomic status on psychiatric disorders, to assess the relationship between standard of living and discrimination against the poor, to investigate the link between low socioeconomic status and homelessness in Oto-Awori LCDA, to find out the health implications of living in low socioeconomic status.
Conclusion
Based on the above findings pertaining to the objectives of the study the following conclusions are drawn.
Good mental health is integral to human health and well being. A person’s mental health and many common mental disorders are shaped by various social, economic, and physical environments operating at different stages of life. Risk factors for many common mental disorders are heavily associated with social inequalities, whereby the greater the inequality the higher the inequality in risk. It is of major importance that action is taken to improve the conditions of everyday life, beginning before birth and progressing into early childhood, older childhood and adolescence, during family building and working ages, and through to older age. Action throughout these life stages would provide opportunities for both improving population mental health, and for reducing risk of those mental disorders that are associated with social inequalities.
Recommendation
Mental health promotion programs should prioritize working with the vulnerable population of people with lower socioeconomic status in order to address this disparity. It is imperative that programs which focus on vulnerable populations such as those of low socioeconomic status include individuals from this population in all aspects of planning, implementing, and evaluating the intervention. It is also important to avoid solely focusing on the deficits and problems in the community. Rather, identification of community assets and strengths is vital. Because of the relationship between economic and social factors and mental health, successful mental health promotion programs must involve creating partnerships with a variety of agencies in the public, private, and non-profit sectors (Elderon & Whooley, 2013). Engaging existing community networks, such as churches, community groups, and local nonprofit organizations, will assist to design and implement interventions that will be relevant to the specific community of interest and build on existing community assets. Creating networks of interested citizens and community associations may also prove to be helpful in advocating for policy changes with regards to the dearth of mental health services in rural areas. Interventions designed to promote mental health must address determinants at multiple levels of the social ecological model, including interpersonal and community factors. As this study showed, neighborhood and social context factors are independently associated with poor mental health quality of life, above and beyond the association with low socioeconomic status.
REFERENCES
- Adler, N. E., & Rehkopf, D. H. (2008). US disparities in health: descriptions, causes, and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 235-252.
- Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental health. Journal of health and social behavior, 293-310.
- Beckie, T. M. (2012). A systematic review of allostatic load, health, and health disparities. Biological research for nursing, 14(4), 311-346.
- Berkman, L., & Kawachi, I. (2000). Social epidemiology. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
- Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2000). Measuring healthy days: Population assessment of health-related quality of life. Atlanta: CDC, 4-6.
- Chaskin, R. J. (1997). Perspectives on neighborhood and community: a review of the literature. The Social Service Review, 521-547.
- Clark, C., Ryan, L., Kawachi, I., Canner, M. J., Berkman, L., & Wright, R. J. (2008). Witnessing community violence in residential neighborhoods: a mental health hazard for urban women. Journal of Urban health, 85(1), 22-38.
