Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 25, 2007
International Journal of Epidemiology 2007 36(2):345-347; doi:10.1093/ije/dym040
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
36/2/345    most recent
dym040v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zubrick, S. R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zubrick, S. R
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.

Commentary: Area social cohesion, deprivation and mental health—Does misery love company?

Stephen R Zubrick

Curtin University of Technology and the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, PO Box 855, West Perth, 6872, Western Australia. E-mail: S.Zubrick@curtin.edu.au

Accepted 14 February 2007

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Fone and his colleagues1 ask us to consider the relationship between area-level social cohesion and individual mental health. At the outset readers should appreciate that population measures of mental health distress, similar to the one used by Fone et al. have been shown to be significantly related to measures of serious mental health disorders.2 While there are variations in the quality of these measures, with some providing greater efficiency than others, the emergent evidence suggests that brief, structured screening scales of mental health distress can reproduce classifications based on lengthier clinical interviews of mental disorders.3 Such measurement studies are important in ‘cross-walking’ the findings between routine community surveys of mental health distress with the less frequent and more intense efforts of clinical epidemiology to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health disorders in population surveys.

These mental health measures . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?