Estimating the causal effects of income on health: how researchers' definitions of "income" matter.

BACKGROUND: There is a well-established cross-sectional association between income and health, but estimates of the causal effects of income vary substantially. Different definitions of income may lead to substantially different empirical results, yet research is often framed as investigating "the effect of income" as if it were a single, easily definable construct. METHODS/RESULTS: The aim of this paper is to introduce a taxonomy for definitional and conceptual issues in studying individual- or household-level income for health research. We focus on (1) the definition of the income measure (earned and unearned; net, gross, and disposable; real and nominal; individual and household; relative and absolute income) and (2) the definition of the causal contrast (amount, functional form assumptions/transformations, direction, duration of change, and timing of exposure and follow-up). We illustrate the application of the taxonomy to four examples from the published literature. CONCLUSIONS: Quantified estimates of causal effects of income on health and wellbeing have crucial relevance for policymakers to anticipate the consequences of policies targeting the social determinants of health. However, much prior evidence has been limited by lack of clarity in distinguishing between different causal questions. The present framework can help researchers explicitly and precisely articulate income-related exposures and causal questions.

Short-term impacts of Universal Basic Income on population mental health inequalities in the UK: A microsimulation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Population mental health in the United Kingdom (UK) has deteriorated, alongside worsening socioeconomic conditions, over the last decade. Policies such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) have been suggested as an alternative economic approach to improve population mental health and reduce health inequalities. UBI may improve mental health (MH), but to our knowledge, no studies have trialled or modelled UBI in whole populations. We aimed to estimate the short-term effects of introducing UBI on mental health in the UK working-age population. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Adults aged 25 to 64 years were simulated across a 4-year period from 2022 to 2026 with the SimPaths microsimulation model, which models the effects of UK tax/benefit policies on mental health via income, poverty, and employment transitions. Data from the nationally representative UK Household Longitudinal Study were used to generate the simulated population (n = 25,000) and causal effect estimates. Three counterfactual UBI scenarios were modelled from 2023: "Partial" (value equivalent to existing benefits), "Full" (equivalent to the UK Minimum Income Standard), and "Full+" (retaining means-tested benefits for disability, housing, and childcare). Likely common mental disorder (CMD) was measured using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12, score ≥4). Relative and slope indices of inequality were calculated, and outcomes stratified by gender, age, education, and household structure. Simulations were run 1,000 times to generate 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Sensitivity analyses relaxed SimPaths assumptions about reduced employment resulting from Full/Full+ UBI. Partial UBI had little impact on poverty, employment, or mental health. Full UBI scenarios practically eradicated poverty but decreased employment (for Full+ from 78.9% [95% UI 77.9, 79.9] to 74.1% [95% UI 72.6, 75.4]). Full+ UBI increased absolute CMD prevalence by 0.38% (percentage points; 95% UI 0.13, 0.69) in 2023, equivalent to 157,951 additional CMD cases (95% UI 54,036, 286,805); effects were largest for men (0.63% [95% UI 0.31, 1.01]) and those with children (0.64% [95% UI 0.18, 1.14]). In our sensitivity analysis assuming minimal UBI-related employment impacts, CMD prevalence instead fell by 0.27% (95% UI -0.49, -0.05), a reduction of 112,228 cases (95% UI 20,783, 203,673); effects were largest for women (-0.32% [95% UI -0.65, 0.00]), those without children (-0.40% [95% UI -0.68, -0.15]), and those with least education (-0.42% [95% UI -0.97, 0.15]). There was no effect on educational mental health inequalities in any scenario, and effects waned by 2026. The main limitations of our methods are the model's short time horizon and focus on pathways from UBI to mental health solely via income, poverty, and employment, as well as the inability to integrate macroeconomic consequences of UBI; future iterations of the model will address these limitations. CONCLUSIONS: UBI has potential to improve short-term population mental health by reducing poverty, particularly for women, but impacts are highly dependent on whether individuals choose to remain in employment following its introduction. Future research modelling additional causal pathways between UBI and mental health would be beneficial.

How do income changes impact on mental health and wellbeing for working-age adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lower incomes are associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing, but the extent to which income has a causal effect is debated. We aimed to synthesise evidence from studies measuring the impact of changes in individual and household income on mental health and wellbeing outcomes in working-age adults (aged 16-64 years). METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ASSIA, EconLit, and RePEc on Feb 5, 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quantitative non-randomised studies. We had no date limits for our search. We included English-language studies measuring effects of individual or household income change on any mental health or wellbeing outcome. We used Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tools. We conducted three-level random-effects meta-analyses, and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression and stratified analyses. Synthesis without meta-analysis was based on effect direction. Critical RoB studies were excluded from primary analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020168379. FINDINGS: Of 16 521 citations screened, 136 were narratively synthesised (12·5% RCTs) and 86 meta-analysed. RoB was high: 30·1% were rated critical and 47·1% serious or high. A binary income increase lifting individuals out of poverty was associated with 0·13 SD improvement in mental health measures (95% CI 0·07 to 0·20; n=42 128; 18 studies), considerably larger than other income increases (0·01 SD improvement, 0·002 to 0·019; n=216 509, 14 studies). For wellbeing, increases out of poverty were associated with 0·38 SD improvement (0·09 to 0·66; n=101 350, 8 studies) versus 0·16 for other income increases (0·07 to 0·25; n=62 619, 11 studies). Income decreases from any source were associated with 0·21 SD worsening of mental health measures (-0·30 to -0·13; n=227 804, 11 studies). Effect sizes were larger in low-income and middle-income settings and in higher RoB studies. Heterogeneity was high (I2=79-87%). GRADE certainty was low or very low. INTERPRETATION: Income changes probably impact mental health, particularly where they move individuals out of poverty, although effect sizes are modest and certainty low. Effects are larger for wellbeing outcomes, and potentially for income losses. To best support population mental health, welfare policies need to reach the most socioeconomically disadvantaged. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office, and European Research Council.

Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review how 'Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions' (ROBINS-I), a Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, has been used in recent systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Database and citation searches were conducted in March 2020 to identify recently published reviews using ROBINS-I. Reported ROBINS-I assessments and data on how ROBINS-I was used were extracted from each review. Methodological quality of reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 ('A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews'). RESULTS: Of 181 hits, 124 reviews were included. Risk of bias was serious/critical in 54% of assessments on average, most commonly due to confounding. Quality of reviews was mostly low, and modifications and incorrect use of ROBINS-I were common, with 20% reviews modifying the rating scale, 20% understating overall risk of bias, and 19% including critical-risk of bias studies in evidence synthesis. Poorly conducted reviews were more likely to report low/moderate risk of bias (predicted probability 57% [95% CI: 47-67] in critically low-quality reviews, 31% [19-46] in high/moderate-quality reviews). CONCLUSION: Low-quality reviews frequently apply ROBINS-I incorrectly, and may thus inappropriately include or give too much weight to uncertain evidence. Readers should be aware that such problems can lead to incorrect conclusions in reviews.