Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Material and meaningful homes: mental health impacts and psychosocial benefits of rehousing to new dwellings

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objective

To establish whether rehousing people to new dwellings had impacts upon residents’ mental health and psychosocial benefits derived from the home.

Methods

A prospective controlled study across Scotland involving 723 householders (334 intervention; 389 control). Interviews were carried out just prior to the move, and 2 years thereafter.

Results

Changes in self-reported psychosocial benefits were greater than changes in mental health. Respondents in family households appeared to have gained the most and those in older person households the least. For those in families, the most consistent effects flowed from improvements in space, privacy and change of location; for those in adult-only households, improvements in crime and safety mattered most. Gains in psychosocial benefits were associated with improved mental health (SF-36) scores.

Conclusions

Rehousing has substantial impacts on residential conditions and on psychosocial benefits, and lesser (possibly indirect) impacts upon mental health. Housing is a complex intervention applied to a heterogeneous group for a range of reasons. Hence its impacts result from different aspects of residential change for particular types of household.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambrose P (2000) A drop in the ocean. The health gain from the central stepney SRB in the context of national health inequalities. Health and Social Policy Research Centre, Brighton

  • Barnes R (2004) Housing and health uncovered. Shepherds Bush Housing Association, London

    Google Scholar 

  • British Medical Association (2003) Housing and health: building for the future. BMA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Communities Scotland (2006) Performance standards for social landlords and homelessness functions. Edinburgh, Communities Scotland

  • Cooper-Marcus C (1995) House as a mirror of self. Conari Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchely R, Gilbertson J, Green G, Grimsley M (2004) Housing investment and health in liverpool. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury A, Watson J, Broomfield R (2006) Housing space standards. HACT Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn J (2002) Housing and inequalities in health: a study of socioeconomic dimensions of housing and self reported health from a survey of Vancouver residents. J Epidemiol Community Health 56(9):671–681

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egan M, Tannahill C, Petticrew M, Thomas S (2008) Psychosocial risk factors in home and community settings and their associations with population health and health inequalities: a systematic meta-review. BMC Public Health 8:239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans GW, Stecker R (2004) Motivational consequences of environmental stress. J Environ Psychol 24:143–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans GW, Wells NM, Moch A (2003) Housing and mental health: a review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique. J Soc Issues 59(3):475–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson M, Thomson H, Kearns A, Petticrew M (2011) Understanding the psychosocial impacts of housing type: qualitative evidence from a study of housing relocation. Hous Stud 26(4):555–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass AT (2000) Psychosocial intervention. In: Kawachi LFBI (ed) Social epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 267–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern D (1995) Mental health and the built environment. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper C, Gorin S, Cabral C, Dyson C (2007) Living with hardship 24/7. Frank Buttle Trust, London

  • Hopton JL, Hunt SM (1996) Housing conditions and mental health in a disadvantaged area in Scotland. J Epidemiol Community Health 50:56–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • James C (2008) Homes fit for families. An evidence review. Families and Parenting Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns A, Hiscock R, Ellaway A, Macintyre S (2000) Beyond four walls. The psychosocial benefits of home: evidence from West Central Scotland. Hous Stud 15(3):387–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns A, Mason P, Petticrew M (2008) SHARP survey findings: changes in residential circumstances. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh A, Gordon D, Pantazis C, Heslop P (1999) Home sweet home? The impact of poor housing on health. Policy Press, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) The impact of overcrowding on health and education. ODPM, London

  • Petticrew M, Kearns A, Hoy C, Gibson M, Mason P (2008) The SHARP study: objectives, design and methodology. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew M, Kearns A, Mason P, Hoy C (2009) The SHARP study: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of housing and neighbourhood renewal. BMC Public Health 9:415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist J, Marmot M (2004) Health inequalities and psychosocial environment—two scientific challenges. Soc Sci Med 58(8):1463–1473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas R, Evans S, Huxley P, Gately C, Rogers A (2005) Housing improvement and self-reported mental distress among council estate residents. Soc Sci Med 60:2773–2783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson H, Thomas S, Sellstrom E, Petticrew M (2009a) The health impacts of housing improvement: a systematic review of intervention studies from 1887 to 2007. Am J Public Health 99(S3):681–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson H, Morrison D, Petticrew M (2009b) The health impacts of housing-led regeneration: a prospective controlled study. J Epidemiol Community Health 61:211–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish ME (2007) User’s manual for the SF-36v2TM health survey, 2nd edn. QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson D (1999) Poor housing and ill health: a summary of research evidence. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The SHARP study was funded by the Scottish Government, the Chief Scientist Office (part of the Scottish Government Health Directorate) and the University of Glasgow. Our thanks to Catherine Ferrell, Kate Campbell and Julie Watson of the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (SPHSU) for organising the fieldwork, and to the fieldwork team for their efforts throughout the project and for the assistance of Business Plus for conducting interviews in the north of Scotland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ade Kearns.

Additional information

This paper belongs to the special issue “Housing for health promotion”.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 127 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Psychosocial benefit items

Respondents were presented with a series of ten statements and asked to declare their level of agreement with each on a 5-point scale, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Benefit

Statement

Privacy

I feel I have privacy in my home

Retreat

I can get away from it all in my home

Freedom

I can do what I want, when I want in my home

Status

Most people would like a home like mine

Control

I feel in control of my home

Progress

My home makes me feel that I’m doing well in life

Security

I worry about losing my home

Routine

My home life has a sense of routine

Safety

My home feels safe

Identity

My home expresses my personality and values

Appendix 2: Definition of residential gains for the intervention group

Dwelling gains

Dwelling

Moving from a flat to a house

Floor level

Moving from above ground level to ground level

Garden

From having no garden to having use of own garden after moving

Fabric

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from five items: damp; condensation; draughty/leaky windows; poor state of repair; unclean, unsafe or cold wall surfaces and floor coverings

Safety/security

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from four items: level of security; accidents inside the home; accidents outside the home; getting in and out of the home

Amenities

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from four items: keeping home warm in winter; drying clothes; number of baths/showers; extent of double glazing

Space

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from four items: too few rooms; too many rooms; rooms too small; rooms too large

Privacy and quiet

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from four items: not enough privacy; noise from neighbours; noise from other household members; noise from street or area

Gains in sense of community

Belonging

Increases in a combined score (0–12) derived across three questions with 5-point Likert scale response categories from ‘agree a lot’ to ‘disagree a lot’:

‘The friends and associations I have with other people in my neighbourhood mean a lot to me’

‘I feel that living in this neighbourhood gives me a sense of community’

‘I don’t feel like I belong to this area’

Cohesion

Increases in a combined score (0–20) derived across five questions with 5-point Likert scale response categories from ‘agree strongly’ to ‘disagree strongly’:

‘People around here are willing to help their neighbours’

‘This is a close-knit community’

‘People in this neighbourhood can be trusted’

‘People in this neighbourhood do not share the same values’

‘People in this neighbourhood generally don’t get along with each other’

Empowerment

Increases in a combined score (0–16) derived across four questions with 5-point Likert scale response categories from ‘agree strongly’ to ‘disagree strongly’:

‘The community in this neighbourhood is generally effective in influencing the authorities and achieving what it wants’

‘I can have a say in local matters if I want’

‘If the people in my community were planning something I would say that “we” were doing something rather than “they” were doing something’

‘I’d be happy to work with others to do something for the community’

Safety

Increases in a combined score (0–12) derived across three questions (two questions for non-family households) with 5-point Likert scale response categories from ‘agree a lot’ to ‘disagree a lot’:

‘I feel safe walking around my area after dark’

‘This is a safe place to live’

-and for respondents in family households:

‘I would be happy for my children to be out after dark’

Collective efficacy

Increases in a combined score (0–16) derived across four questions with 5-point Likert scale response categories from ‘very likely’ to ‘very unlikely’:

‘How likely is it that neighbours around here could be counted on to do something if…

‘Children were skiving off school’

‘Children were spraying graffiti on a wall’

‘Children were showing disrespect to an adult’

‘A neighbour was dumping rubbish in the street’

Neighbourhood improvements

Change of location

Those who answered yes to the following post-intervention question:

‘Are you living in the same neighbourhood as before you moved?’

Regeneration area

Post-intervention location within one of the Scottish Government’s social inclusion partnership areas. determined by postcode unit

Neighbourhood infrastructure

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from 12 items: security level of houses, closes, courts and gardens; level of police presence or response speed; general appearance of the area; air quality or pollution; adequate street lighting; noise, e.g. factories, traffic, shouting; speeding traffic or amount of traffic; uneven or dangerous pavements; public transport services; safe children’s play areas; facilities for teenagers and young people; reputation of the area

Neighbourhood crime and ASB

Reduction in the number of ‘serious problems’ identified from 11 items: disturbance by children or youngsters; vandalism/graffiti; litter and rubbish; assaults and muggings; burglaries; people drinking alcohol in public places; nuisance from dogs; people hanging around; drug dealing/taking; the people around here; domestic abuse

Increased local activity

Use of amenities

Increase in the number of amenities used in the local area from a list of 11 items: general grocer or supermarket; leisure facilities, e.g. bingo, social club, pub; sports facilities; local park; post office; bank including ATM; doctors’ surgery/health centre; church/chapel/temple; adult education classes; library; schools/nurseries (for families only)

Social networks

Increase in the number of close contacts living nearby (within 10–15 min walk of the home) including: immediate family, close friends or other relatives

Neighbouring

Increase in the number of neighbouring behaviours engaged in from a list of five items:

‘I visit my neighbours in their homes’

‘If I needed advice, I could go to someone in my neighbourhood’

‘I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours’

‘I rarely have my neighbours over to my house to visit’

‘I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood’

Participation

Increase in the number of organizations people ‘join in the activities of’ with in the local area, from a list of ten items: political parties, trade unions, pressure groups; parent-teacher association; tenants’ or residents’ groups; youth groups, scouts, guides or similar; church or other religious group; charitable organization; education, arts or music group, or evening class; social groups; sports club, gym or exercise class; other groups or organizations or informal groups

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kearns, A., Whitley, E., Mason, P. et al. Material and meaningful homes: mental health impacts and psychosocial benefits of rehousing to new dwellings. Int J Public Health 56, 597–607 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-011-0275-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-011-0275-3

Keywords

Navigation