FIND CATEGORY FOR ARTICLE

Analyze article and determine cultural category





Id : 2153

Author :
Macdonald L.; Nicholls N.; Gallou E.; Monckton L.; Mitchell R.

Title


Is spatial exposure to heritage associated with visits to heritage and to mental health? A cross-sectional study using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS)

Reference :


Macdonald L.; Nicholls N.; Gallou E.; Monckton L.; Mitchell R. Is spatial exposure to heritage associated with visits to heritage and to mental health? A cross-sectional study using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS),BMJ Open 13 3

Link to article https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85151190558&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2022-066986&partnerID=40&md5=ff28eecfa71d2a2241f49ddccf6fe269
Abstract Objectives Existing research highlights the beneficial nature of heritage engagement for mental health, but engagement varies geographically and socially, and few studies explore spatial exposure (ie, geographic availability) to heritage and heritage visits. Our research questions were 'does spatial exposure to heritage vary by area income deprivation?', 'is spatial exposure to heritage linked to visiting heritage?' and 'is spatial exposure to heritage linked to mental health?'. Additionally, we explored whether local heritage is associated with mental health regardless of the presence of green space. Design Data were collected from January 2014 to June 2015 via the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) wave 5. Our study is cross-sectional. Setting UKHLS data were either collected via face-to-face interview or online questionnaire. Participants 30 431 adults (16+ years) (13 676 males, 16 755 females). Participants geocoded to Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) 'neighbourhood' and 'English Index of Multiple Deprivation' 2015 income score. Main exposures/outcome measures LSOA-level heritage exposure and green space exposure (ie, population and area densities); heritage site visit in the past year (outcome, binary: no, yes); mental distress (outcome, General Health Questionnaire-12, binary: less distressed 0-3, more distressed 4+). Results Heritage varied by deprivation, the most deprived areas (income quintile (Q)1: 1.8) had fewer sites per 1000 population than the least deprived (Q5: 11.1) (p<0.01). Compared with those with no LSOA-level heritage, those with heritage exposure were more likely to have visited a heritage site in the past year (OR: 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22)) (p<0.01). Among those with heritage exposure, visitors to heritage had a lower predicted probability of distress (0.171 (95% CI 0.162 to 0.179)) than non-visitors (0.238 (95% CI 0.225 to 0.252)) (p<0.001). Conclusions Our research contributes to evidence for the well-being benefits of heritage and is highly relevant to the government's levelling-up heritage strategy. Our findings can feed into schemes to tackle inequality in heritage exposure to improve both heritage engagement and mental health. © 2023 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.



Results:


                    Category                    

             Certainity            
Heritage 0.9819
Archives 0.0001
Libraries 0.0005
Book and Press 0.0000
Visual Arts 0.0150
Performing Arts 0.0000
Audiovisual and Multimedia 0.0000
Architecture 0.0009
Adverstizing 0.0000
Art crafts 0.0009
General cultural dimension 0.0006
Note: Due to lack of computing power, results have been previously created and saved in database