Department of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada.
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;54(10):1177-1187. doi: 10.1007/s00127-019-01718-6. Epub 2019 May 3.
It is common in prior studies of the influence of neighbourhood characteristics on mental health to use participant-assessed neighbourhood exposures, which can lead to same-source bias since an individual's mental health status may influence their judgement of their neighbourhood. To avoid this potential bias, we evaluated the use of individually assessed neighbourhood exposures to understand how they compare to collectively assessed measures (by aggregating multiple responses within the same neighbourhood). This would increase the validity of the measure by decoupling the neighbourhood measure from an individual's mental health status.
We conducted a stratified-randomised survey of 2411 adults across 87 census tracts in Toronto, Canada (mean of 28 per census tract) to investigate how self-reported (individually assessed) social environmental neighbourhood measures compared to aggregated, collectively assessed, measures for neighbourhood problems/disorder, safety, service quality, and linking, bonding and bridging social capital. The outcome, experience of major depression in the past 12 months, was measured using the Composite International Diagnostic Studies Depression Scale Short Form.
(1) Individually assessed neighbourhood problems, (2) low (individually assessed) neighbourhood safety, (3) low (individually assessed) neighbourhood service quality, and (4) low (individually assessed) linking social capital were independently associated with depression (all at least p < 0.05). However, when the individually assessed exposures were aggregated over residents in the same neighbourhood, none of them were significantly associated with depression.
Our study provides evidence for same-source bias in studies of social environmental determinants of depression that relies on individually assessed neighbourhood measures. We caution future studies from solely relying on individually assessed neighbourhood exposures especially in the study of social environmental influences on mental health outcomes.
在先前研究邻里特征对心理健康的影响时，常使用参与者评估的邻里暴露情况，这可能导致同源偏差，因为个体的心理健康状况可能会影响他们对邻里的判断。为了避免这种潜在的偏差，我们评估了使用个体评估的邻里暴露情况，以了解它们与集体评估措施（通过在同一邻里内聚合多个响应）相比如何。这将通过将邻里措施与个体的心理健康状况解耦来提高测量的有效性。
我们对加拿大多伦多的 87 个普查区的 2411 名成年人进行了分层随机调查（每个普查区平均 28 人），以调查自我报告的（个体评估的）社会环境邻里措施与邻里问题/失序、安全、服务质量和联系、联系、桥梁社会资本的集体评估措施相比如何。使用复合国际诊断研究抑郁量表短表测量过去 12 个月的主要抑郁经历作为结果。
（1）个体评估的邻里问题、（2）低（个体评估的）邻里安全、（3）低（个体评估的）邻里服务质量和（4）低（个体评估的）联系社会资本与抑郁独立相关（均至少 p<0.05）。然而，当个体评估的暴露情况在同一邻里的居民中进行汇总时，它们都与抑郁没有显著关联。
我们的研究为依赖个体评估的邻里措施的研究提供了社会环境决定抑郁的同源偏差的证据。我们警告未来的研究不要仅依赖个体评估的邻里暴露情况，尤其是在研究社会环境对心理健康结果的影响时。
