Skip to main content
Family Medicine and Community Health logoLink to Family Medicine and Community Health
. 2023 Jun 30;11(2):e001971. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2022-001971

Sense of community and mental health: a cross-sectional analysis from a household survey in Wisconsin

Eunice Y Park 1,2,, Thomas R Oliver 3, Paul E Peppard 3, Kristen C Malecki 4
PMCID: PMC10314672  PMID: 37399294

Abstract

Background

In the USA, one in five adults live with a mental illness, and researchers have estimated that nearly half of the population will have a mental illness over the course of their lifetime. Research has shown significant associations between social relationships and mental health outcomes at the individual and population levels. This study aims to examine whether sense of community, a type of social capital, is associated with mental health.

Methods

In a cross-sectional analysis, multiple logistic regression models were used to examine whether sense of community was associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress reported over the last week. The analysis used data from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin collected between 2014 and 2016. A total of 1647 observations are included in the analyses.

Results

Compared with those who report a positive sense of community, those with a negative sense of community had a significantly higher odds of reporting depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Socioeconomic status is negatively associated with depression and anxiety, but not with stress. Women were more likely to experience moderate, severe, or extremely severe anxiety and stress, compared with men.

Conclusion

This study extends current understanding of health benefits of social capital and found that individuals’ sense of community is associated with reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. Further research examining mechanisms to support improved sense of community and other types of social capital could benefit health equity research.

Keywords: Mental Health, Health Surveys, Depression


WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

  • This study expands beyond prior research to examine the relationship between sense of community and mental health in the general population. Social capital is one of several related phenomena that researchers have asserted influence general health and mental well-being. There are many types and measures of social capital, however. The relationship between sense of community, one type of social capital and mental health outcomes has been demonstrated in very specific subpopulations.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

  • In this study, we find that individuals reporting a higher sense of community in their neighbourhoods reported less symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. This suggests that incorporating information on social relationships can strengthen the capacity of health surveys to link social factors to important health conditions.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

  • Findings of statistically significant associations between sense of community and symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress can be a foundation for adding new measures of social capital into future studies and investigating a wider range of health outcomes.

Introduction

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, 57.8 million or one in five American adults live with a mental illness in 2021,1 and researchers have estimated that nearly half of the population will have a mental illness over the course of their lifetime.2 In 2019, 8.1% of adults had anxiety disorder symptoms and 6.5% had symptoms of depressive disorders, which are the two most common mental illnesses.3 While predisposing and more proximal factors in the development of mental illness are complex, there is good evidence that the quantity and quality of one’s social relationships can play a role.

An extensive field of study shows significant associations between social relationships and health outcomes at the individual and population levels. Previous research has employed a variety of constructs and operational measures, including social capital,4–7 social support,8 9 social ties,10 social network,11 social cohesion12 and social participation.13 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies loneliness and social isolation as public health risks, specifically for adults aged 50 and older.14

This study focuses on social capital. While there is no one definition of social capital, the core idea is that the social relationships of individuals function as resources that affect different dimensions of their well-being. We build on the approach of Perkins and Long,15 who identify four types of social capital based on whether it is present in cognition or actual behaviour, and whether it operates through formal or informal organisations.15

In particular, we focus on one type of social capital, which Perkins and Long label as ‘Sense of Community’.15 In their typology, sense of community is based on individuals’ perceptions of informal organisation and relationships. They follow the seminal work of McMillan and Chavis,16 who define sense of community as ‘a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together’.16 McMillan and Chavis operationalised sense of community as a composite measure of four dimensions: (1) needs fulfilment (a perception that members’ needs will be met by the community); (2) group membership (a feeling of belonging or a sense of interpersonal relatedness); (3) influence (a sense that one matters, or can make a difference, in a community and that the community matters to its members) and (4) emotional connection (a feeling of attachment or bonding rooted in members’ shared history, place or experience).16

The cognitive and emotional aspects of sense of community make this type of social capital especially relevant for mental health outcomes. Leading scholars in social epidemiology have suggested the importance of such analysis, arguing that being integrated into a social network may produce positive psychological states like a sense of purpose, belonging, security and self-worth.17 18 Beyond promoting mental health, one’s sense of community may also serve as a buffer to protect mental health in the face of adverse or challenging life events. Some studies have explored the relationship between sense of community and mental health in very specific subpopulations such as military spouses19 and persons with psychiatric disabilities.20

The purpose of the study is to examine whether there is an association between sense of community and mental health in the general population. It tests the hypothesis that one’s sense of community is negatively associated with common symptoms of mental illness including depression, anxiety and stress. It examines these associations in a population-based study of adults living across geographically diverse urban and rural communities. The analysis is based on self-reported measures from a well-established household survey in Wisconsin, as detailed in the sections below.

Methods

Study sample

This study sample includes adult participants from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW) between 2014 and 2016. SHOW is a comprehensive household-based health examination survey collecting data on demographics, health history, self-reported health, quality of life, health behaviours, access to care, insurance, caregiving and cognitive function.21 The 2014–2016 includes a triennial randomly selected population representative of Wisconsin’s adult civilian, non-institutionalised population. A three-stage sampling design with counties stratified by state health regions, demographics and poverty is the primary sampling unit. Milwaukee and Dane counties are selected due to their large size relative to all 72 Wisconsin counties; 10 counties in total are selected for visits in 11 stands (one stand per county except for two stands in Milwaukee County). Within each selected county, the secondary and tertiary sampling units in 2014–2016 were Census 2010 block groups and households within each census block chosen group. Combining all 3 years of data collection, the sample is intended to be geographically and demographically representative of the state of Wisconsin (Details on sampling methods can be found here: https://show.wisc.edu/data/survey-methods/). Among the 1957 adults who participated in the 2014–2016 survey, 1647 had complete case data for the predictor measure of interest.

Sense of community

The primary predictor used in this analyses is a measure of sense of community derived from the eight-item Brief Sense of Community Scale developed by Peterson et al,22 based on the work of McMillan and Chavis16 (see online supplemental appendix A). The eight items ask survey respondents to report how their neighbourhood allows them to fulfil needs, exert influence, achieve a sense of belonging and develop emotional bonds with others. The participants answer according to a five-point Likert scale: ‘strongly agree (1)’, ‘agree (2)’, ‘neutral (3)’, ‘disagree (4)’ and ‘strongly disagree (5)’. The composite measure is derived by averaging the responses to the eight questions. Because very few respondents reported strong agreement (n=15) or strong disagreement (n=3), we grouped respondents based on a three-point categorical variable: a ‘positive sense of community (score range: 1–2.5)’, ‘neutral (score range: 2.5–3.5)’ and a ‘negative sense of community (score range: 3.5–5)’.

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp001.pdf (47.8KB, pdf)

Symptoms of mental illness

To assess mental health, we use symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress—these conditions being the most common mental health-related diagnoses. The measures in SHOW are based on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS), a self-administered questionnaire created by Lovibond and Lovibond.23 The 2014–2016 survey uses the DASS-21, a subset of the original survey adopted by Henry and Crawford,24 which has seven questions per section: depression (low positive affectivity), anxiety (physiological hyperarousal) and stress (negative affectivity). Validity25 and reliability26 27 of DASS-21 have been established for many languages and in diverse cultural settings over the past couple of decades. It is important to note two things about DASS-21. First, it was not created as a diagnostic test. Second, it specifies the past week as a reference in considering these questions.

Composite scores within each domain of depression, anxiety and stress were calculated for the respondents who answered all of the items (see online supplemental appendix B). Answers were scored on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3 with the following descriptors: 0 (did not apply to me at all), 1 (applied to me to some degree, or some of the time), 2 (applied to me to a considerable degree or a good part of time) or 3 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). The composite measures of depression, anxiety and stress are summed scores for each item and range from 0 to 21. For interpretation, this number is multiplied by two to correspond with the original cut-off points suggested by Lovibond and Lovibond23 for normal, mild, moderate, severe and extremely severe conditions (see online supplemental appendix B).23 This study uses the suggested cut-off points to create a binary variable by grouping normal (ie, no symptoms or little symptoms below the threshold for being classified as mild) and mild (0) and moderate, severe, and extremely severe symptoms (1). This allows for logistic regression to discriminate between mild and more serious conditions.

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp002.pdf (78.5KB, pdf)

Covariates

The analyses controlled for several key covariates widely used in previous research using SHOW data (see online supplemental appendix C).28–30 For demographic factors, we included age in six categories ranging from 18 to 98; gender categorised into female and male; and race and ethnicity categorised into non-Hispanic white alone and non-white, which includes non-Hispanic Black or African American (alone or in combination), Hispanic (any race) and Non-Hispanic other or multiracial (not Black or African American). For socioeconomic factors, we included educational attainment in five categories: less than high school degree, high school or equivalent, some college, associate’s degree and bachelor’s degree or above, as well as annual household income in five categories. We also included the urbanised areas and urban cluster classification codes from the 2010 Census, which were used to control the urbanicity and rurality of the residential area: urban and rural.

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp003.pdf (50.6KB, pdf)

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were undertaken in SAS Studio V.3.8 with survey procedures to account for the intricate sampling design of SHOW. All analyses accounted for the SHOW survey design and population weights. We developed crude and adjusted logistic regression models to test the association between sense of community and each symptoms of mental illness measure. Adjusted models account for individual-level demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of age, gender, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, income, and residential area.

Patient and public involvement

Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.

Results

The characteristics of the 1674 participants are presented in table 1. For sense of community, the average response for all eight items on a five-point scale is 0.7% for ‘strongly agree’, 17.5 for ‘agree’, 60.1% for ‘neutral’, 21.7% for ‘disagree’, and 0.2% for ‘strongly disagree’. For the consolidated three-point scale, the average response for all eight items is 42.4% (n=757) for a ‘positive sense of community’, 46.4% (n=742) for ‘neutral’ and 11.2% (n=175) for a ‘negative sense of community’. For symptoms of mental illness, 12.4% report symptoms of moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression while 87.6% do not; 11.8% of respondents report symptoms of moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of anxiety while 88.2% do not; and 7.5% of respondents report symptoms of moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of stress while 92.5% do not.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the sample, SHOW 2014–2016

Positive sense of community, n (%) Neutral sense of community, n (%) Negative sense of community, n (%) Total, n (%)
Age
 18–34 82 (10.8) 186 (25.1) 68 (39.9) 336 (20.1)
 35–44 107 (14.1) 117 (15.8) 33 (18.9) 257 (15.4)
 45–54 117 (15.4) 125 (16.8) 19 (10.9) 261 (16.0)
 55–64 173 (22.9) 146 (19.7) 29 (16.6) 348 (20.8)
 65–74 173 (22.9) 102 (13.7) 21 (12.0) 296 (17.7)
 >74 105 (13.9) 66 (8.9) 5 (2.9) 176 (10.5)
 Missing 0 0 0 0
Gender
 Male 328 (43.3) 337 (45.4) 70 (40.0) 735 (43.9)
 Female 429 (56.7) 405 (54.6) 105 (60.0) 939 (56.1)
 Missing 0 0 0 0
Race and ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic white alone 681 (90.1) 639 (86.1) 114 (65.5) 1434 (85.8)
 Non-white 75 (9.9) 103 (13.9) 60 (34.5) 238 (14.2)
 Missing 1 0 1 2
Marital status
 Married 519 (68.7) 452 (60.9) 81 (46.3) 1052 (62.9)
 Divorced, separated or widowed 159 (21.1) 109 (14.7) 29 (16.6) 297 (17.8)
 Single or living with partner 77 (10.2) 181 (24.4) 65 (37.1) 323 (19.3)
 Missing 2 0 0 2
Educational attainment
 <High school degree 33 (4.4) 52 (7.0) 14 (8.0) 99 (5.9)
 High school or equivalent 124 (16.4) 148 (20.0) 38 (21.7) 310 (18.5)
 Some college 131 (17.3) 135 (18.2) 55 (31.4) 321 (19.2)
 Associate degree 125 (16.5) 137 (18.5) 29 (16.6) 291 (17.4)
 Bachelor’s degree or above 343 (45.4) 269 (36.3) 39 (22.3) 651 (38.9)
 Missing 1 1 0 0
Income
 <US$20 000 63 (8.7) 92 (13.0) 36 (21.8) 191 (11.9)
 US$20 000–US$34 999 94 (12.9) 126 (17.8) 45 (27.3) 265 (16.6)
 US$35 000–US$49 999 98 (13.5) 99 (14.0) 20 (12.1) 217 (13.6)
 US$50 000–US$74 999 175 (24.1) 153 (21.6) 30 (18.2) 358 (22.4)
 >$75 000 297 (40.9) 238 (33.6) 34 (20.6) 569 (35.6)
 Missing 30 34 10 74
 Total 727 708 165 1600
Residential area
 Urban 479 506 134 1119
 Rural 278 236 41 555
 Missing 0 0 0 0

SHOW, Survey of the Health of Wisconsin.

The results of the multiple logistic regression models presenting ORs for moderate, severe and extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress by levels of sense of community as well as included covariates are presented in table 2. The crude model shows a highly significant negative association between sense of community and depression (p<0.001). Compared with individuals with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral sense of community were 2.2 times more likely (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2, p<0.001) and those with a negative sense of community were 5.0 times more likely (OR 5.0, 95% CI 3.2 to 7.9, p<0.001), to report moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression. A significant negative association remains after adjusting for the demographic and socioeconomic covariates (p<0.001). Compared with individuals with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral sense of community were 1.8 times more likely (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.5, p=0.002), and those with a negative sense of community were 3.2 times more likely (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.0 to 5.1, p<0.001), to report moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression. Several covariates were associated with depression, including age (p<0.001) and income (p=0.024). Age is associated with depression. Specifically, compared with those who were 18–34 years of age, those who were 65–74 years of age (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p<0.001) and older than 74 years of age (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p<0.001) are 70% less likely to experience symptoms of depression.

Table 2.

Results for the multiple logistic regression models for the odds of reported symptoms of moderate, severe and extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress

Depression Anxiety Stress
OR (95% CI) P value OR (95% CI) P value OR (95% CI) P value
Sense of community
 Positive sense of community Reference Reference Reference
 Neutral 1.79 (1.26 to 2.52) 0.002 1.66 (1.20 to 2.30) 0.003 1.24 (0.77 to 2.00) 0.38
 Negative sense of community 3.18 (1.98 to 5.10) <0.001 2.71 (1.59 to 4.63) <0.001 2.76 (1.75 to 4.35) <0.001
Age
 18–34 Reference Reference Reference
 35–44 1.06 (0.66 to 1.71) 0.81 1.67 (0.98 to 2.83) 0.059 1.07 (0.69 to 1.65) 0.77
 45–54 1.04 (0.65 to 1.64) 0.88 0.77 (0.33 to 1.77) 0.52 0.92 (0.50 to 1.70) 0.79
 55–64 0.79 (0.47 to 1.33) 0.37 0.98 (0.59 to 1.61) 0.93 0.52 (0.21 to 1.27) 0.146
 65–74 0.33 (0.18 to 0.59) <0.001 0.71 (0.34 to 1.47) 0.34 0.14 (0.05 to 0.37) <0.001
 >74 0.26 (0.15 to 0.48) <0.001 0.85 (0.35 to 2.04) 0.70 0.12 (0.02 to 0.57) 0.009
Gender (ref=male)
 Female 1.50 (0.95 to 2.39) 0.084 1.77 (1.11 to 2.80) 0.017 1.98 (1.05 to 3.72) 0.035
Race and ethnicity
(ref=non-Hispanic white)
 Non-white 1.05 (0.72 to 1.53) 0.79 0.88 (0.56 to 1.39) 0.58 1.04 (0.63 to 1.70) 0.89
Marital status
 Married Reference Reference Reference
 Divorced, separated or widowed 1.14 (0.61 to 2.15) 0.67 1.15 (0.69 to 1.92) 0.59 0.56 (0.22 to 1.47) 0.23
 Single or living with partner 1.47 (0.88 to 2.44) 0.137 1.42 (0.71 to 2.83) 0.31 1.00 (0.51 to 1.99) 0.99
Educational attainment
 <High school degree Reference Reference Reference
 High school or equivalent 0.66 (0.44 to 1.00) 0.049 0.46 (0.23 to 0.90) 0.024 1.17 (0.43 to 3.22) 0.76
 Some college 0.60 (0.32 to 1.12) 0.103 0.49 (0.21 to 1.16) 0.102 1.17 (0.35 to 3.98) 0.79
 Associate degree 0.55 (0.34 to 0.88) 0.014 0.52 (0.26 to 1.06) 0.070 0.92 (0.23 to 3.66) 0.90
 Bachelor’s degree or above 0.41 (0.21 to 0.82) 0.013 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45) <0.001 0.71 (0.26 to 1.97) 0.50
Income
 <US$20 000 Reference Reference Reference
 US$20 000–US$34 999 1.24 (0.58 to 2.67) 0.57 0.98 (0.54 to 1.77) 0.95 1.14 (0.62 to 2.08) 0.67
 US$35 000–US$49 999 1.63 (0.94 to 2.81) 0.08 0.75 (0.38 to 1.48) 0.40 1.32 (0.61 to 2.83) 0.47
 US$50 000–US$74 999 0.96 (0.53 to 1.72) 0.88 0.53 (0.33 to 0.86) 0.011 0.52 (0.23 to 1.18) 0.113
 >US$75 000 0.75 (0.37 to 1.54) 0.43 0.56 (0.26 to 1.19) 0.129 0.67 (0.32 to 1.39) 0.27
Residential area (ref=rural)
 Urban 1.18 (0.87 to 1.59) 0.29 1.01 (0.66 to 1.55) 0.97 1.34 (0.83 to 2.16) 0.22

For anxiety, the crude model shows a highly significant negative association between sense of community and moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of anxiety. Compared with individuals with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral sense of community were 1.9 times more likely (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.4, p<0.001) and those with a negative sense of community were 4.4 times more likely (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.5 to 7.7, p<0.001), to report moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of anxiety. A significant negative association remains after adjusting for the demographic and socioeconomic covariates. Compared with individuals with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral sense of community were 1.7 times more likely (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.3, p=0.003), and those with a negative sense of community were 2.7 times more likely (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.6, p<0.001) to report moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of anxiety. Several covariates were associated with anxiety, including age (p=0.008), gender (p=0.017), educational attainment (p<0.001) and income (p=0.04). Overall, age is associated with symptoms of anxiety, although specific age groups indicate different trends. Compared with men, women are 1.8 times more likely to experience anxiety (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8, p=0.017). Education and income are both negatively associated with experiencing greater anxiety symptoms.

Similar to both depression and anxiety, the crude model shows a highly significant negative association between one’s sense of community and symptoms of moderate, severe or extremely severe stress. Compared with individuals with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral sense of community were 1.6 times more likely (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.7, p=0.052) and those with a negative sense of community were 4.7 times more likely (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.7 to 8.4, p<0.001), to report moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of stress. The association remains after adjusting for the demographic and socioeconomic covariates. Compared with individuals with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral sense of community were 1.2 times more likely (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.0, p=0.38), and those with a negative sense of community were 2.8 times more likely (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7 to 4.4, p<0.001), to report moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of stress. Several covariates were associated with stress, including age (p=0.002) and gender (p=0.03).

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis with different cut-off points was performed for robustness of the results. For a sensitivity analysis, we grouped respondents based on a three-point categorical variable: a ‘positive sense of community (score range: 1–2)’, ‘neutral (score range: 2–4)’ and a ‘negative sense of community (score range: 4–5)’. For the consolidated three-point scale in the sensitivity analysis, the average response for all eight items is 18.1% (n=334) for a ‘positive sense of community’, 60.1% (n=1000) for ‘neutral’ and 21.8% (n=340) for a ‘negative sense of community’.

Sensitivity analysis suggests similar findings with the main findings of the study. The overall results and directions did not change. The results of the sensitivity analysis presenting ORs for moderate, severe and extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress by levels of sense of community as well as included covariates are presented in online supplemental appendix D.

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp004.pdf (47.8KB, pdf)

Discussion

Our findings suggest that sense of community, a limited form of social capital, is negatively associated with self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. They provide a foundation for exploring further the importance of social relationships in promoting and protecting mental health in a turbulent and increasingly insecure society. Compared with those with a positive sense of community, those with a neutral or negative sense of community had significantly higher odds of reporting moderate, severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress.

As expected, several individual demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are significantly associated with mental well-being as measured by depression, anxiety and stress symptoms reported in the last 7 days. However, not all relationships are consistently in the same direction. It is widely known that, overall, age is associated with improved mental health.31 While age is strongly associated with enhanced symptoms of mental illness among 2014–2016 SHOW respondents, the association is not uniform across age groups. Socioeconomic status, commonly measured by educational attainment and income, is well known to be negatively associated with symptoms of poor mental health.32 We found them to be associated as well. They are negatively associated with depression and anxiety, but not with stress. In other words, higher education and higher income levels do seem to protect individuals from depression and anxiety, but not from stress. Women were more likely to experience moderate, severe, and extremely severe anxiety and stress compared with men. Race and ethnicity, marital status and residential area are not significantly associated with depression, anxiety or stress.

Overall, we found strong associations between sense of community and symptoms of mental illness. These findings are important for two reasons. First, the survey items in SHOW for sense of community reference one’s neighbourhood rather than a broader spatial or psychological scope of social support. Studies have shown that living in a neighbourhood with high social capital is associated with better health.33 ‘Neighbourhood’ in some studies means census block, census tract or postcode. Less formal designations of neighbourhoods are commonplace in many, if not most American communities. SHOW leaves it up to respondents to interpret neighbourhoods without any specific geographical boundaries, partly because respondents live in rural, suburban and urban areas. Nonetheless, their reference point is likely a fairly discrete geographic area nearby to their residence. So how can that limited source of sense of community impact health and well-being? According to Eicher and Kawachi,34 people’s physical surroundings and social lives affect how they perceive their community and behave in formal and informal interactions. Formal interactions encourage contact between people through town hall meetings or soccer team practices. At the same time, informal encounters are ubiquitous on a day-to-day basis, like bumping into a neighbour while going for a run or getting the mail. Thus, our results offer insights into how place matters and that neighbourhoods can influence health, for better or worse, and serve as a logical target for health-oriented changes. If our findings are validated by subsequent research, then neighbourhood-level initiatives to create and strengthen positive social relationships would be warranted.

The second reason these findings are important is that the limited sense of community probed in 2014–2016 SHOW participants likely represents a lower bound of the impact of social capital on health outcomes. Although the neighbourhood is a meaningful form of community that individuals often find a connection to, one’s sense of community is not bound to physical proximity or geographic distance only. Comparing the different types and levels of sense of community deriving from neighbourhood to other relationships (eg, family, friends, coworkers, hobbies, professional colleagues) would more fully account for resources individuals can turn to for information, assistance and psychological support.

More significantly, this analysis examines sense of community, only one type of social capital. The SHOW items for sense of community only measure certain cognitive perceptions about one’s community (cognitive social capital), not actual behaviours and explicit social relationships such as group membership and participation (structural social capital). As Almedom35 noted, social capital is a compound and complex term requiring multidimensional definitions and corresponding methods to measure and investigate.35 So our study measures only a modest portion of the potential impacts of social relationships on general health and more specific conditions such as mental illness.

In addition to exploring only a restricted form of social capital, the study has other limitations. First, there may be a selection bias against people with fair or poor mental health. Those who agreed to participate in SHOW are likely to have a mental health status that allows them to take part in the lengthy and comprehensive survey. Similarly, those persons with a lower sense of community—or who value community less—may be less likely to participate in SHOW. Second, there could be information bias. Considering how DASS-21 asks sensitive questions on mental health, it is possible that participants are not fully reporting their symptomatic experiences. This may have led to under-reporting of the symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. Third, relying solely on self-reported information may not capture the fullest representation of sense of community, and it could be argued that other data sources could be valuable in supplementing self-reports (eg, Glynn identifies multiple predictors of sense of community).36 Amongst, expected length of community residency, satisfaction with the community and the number of neighbours one could identify by first name are the strongest predictors. These can be supplemental measures to the self-reported sense of community questions. Fourth, there may be unobserved covariates related to people’s engagement at the neighbourhood level or to symptoms of mental illness that limit the robustness of the findings. For instance, parents with young children are very likely to be more involved with neighbours and other community residents through daycare, school or other activities.

A final limitation is that the analysis is cross-sectional, and the associations found cannot identify causal direction. It is possible, and even likely, that there are bidirectional effects such as worse mental health leading to lower levels of social interaction and sense of community. For instance, Maher et al 37 show that depression predicts older adults’ lower social support and Park et al 38 show the link between depression and reduced online social support through Facebook. In order to better understand the underlying pathways, longitudinal data would be useful.

Conclusion

This study extends the current understanding of the connections between social capital and mental health. Findings indicate that a positive sense of community is associated with a reduced reporting of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Although this study was limited to only one type of social capital, the strong positive association between a neighbourhood-based sense of community and symptoms of mental illness suggests that the neighbourhood is a meaningful form of community for giving and receiving assistance, building trust, and other contributors to well-being. This study provides a foundation for adding new measures of social capital into future studies and investigating a wider range of health outcomes.

Footnotes

Twitter: @euniciouseunice

Contributors: EYP designed the study, analysed data, wrote the manuscript, and

is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. TRO, PEP and KCM aided study design, data analysis and manuscript write-up.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data used in this study may be obtained from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW) and are not publicly available.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

All SHOW protocols are approved by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Health Sciences Institutional Review Board. This study was determined to meet the criteria for exempt human subjects in accordance with the 'secondary research on data or specimens (no consent required)' category as defined under 45 CFR 46 (ID: 2022–0539).

References

  • 1. National Institute for Mental Health . Mental Health Information. Bethesda, MD, 2021. Available: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness [accessed 20 Jun 2023]. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Reeves WC, Strine TW, Pratt LA, et al. Mental illness surveillance among adults in the United States. MMWR 2011;60:1–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . National Center for Health Statistics: Anxiety and Depression. Atlanta, GA, 2021. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/mental-health.htm [accessed 17 Oct 2022]. [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Bourdieu P, Richardson J, eds. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1986: 241–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 1988;94:S95–120. 10.1086/228943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Putnam RD. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. APSC 1995;28:664–83. 10.2307/420517 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 174–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the Buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull 1985;98:310–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F. Beyond social capital: spatial Dynamics of collective efficacy of children. American Sociological Review 1999;64:633. 10.2307/2657367 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, et al. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine 2000;51:843–57. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. de Leon CFM, Gold DT, Glass TA, et al. Disability as a function of social networks and support in elderly African Americans and whites: the Duke EPESE 1986–1992. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2001;56:S179–90. 10.1093/geronb/56.3.S179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Lavis JN, Stoddart GL. Social cohesion and health. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Bath PA, Deeg D. Social engagement and health outcomes among older people: introduction to a special section. Eur J Ageing 2005;2:24–30. 10.1007/s10433-005-0019-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Loneliness and social isolation linked to serious health conditions. Alzheimer’s Disease and Healthy Aging 2021. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/aging/publications/features/lonely-older-adults.html [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Perkins DD, Long DA. Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level Analysi. In: Fisher A, Sonn C, Bishop B, eds. Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications. New York: Plenum, 2002: 291–318. [Google Scholar]
  • 16. McMillan DW, Chavis DM. Sense of community: A definition and theory. J Community Psychol 1986;14:6–23. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social ties and mental health. J Urban Health 2001;78:458–67. 10.1093/jurban/78.3.458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. McKenzie K, Whitley R, Weich S. Social capital and mental health. Br J Psychiatry 2002;181:280–3. 10.1192/bjp.181.4.280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Wang M-C, Nyutu P, Tran K, et al. Finding resilience: the mediation effect of sense of community on the psychological well-being of military spouses. J Ment Health Couns 2015;37:164–74. 10.17744/mehc.37.2.07054x614489204m [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Wong YLI, Sands RG, Solomon PL. Conceptualizing community: the experience of mental health consumers. Qual Health Res 2010;20:654–67. 10.1177/1049732310361610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Malecki KMC, Nikodemova M, Schultz AA, et al. n.d. The survey of the health of Wisconsin (SHOW) program: an infrastructure for advancing population health sciences in the 21st century. Front Public Health;10:464. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.818777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Peterson NA, Speer PW, McMillan DW. Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. J Community Psychol 2008;36:61–73. 10.1002/jcop.20217 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety & Stress Scales 2nd edition. Sydney: Psychology Foundation of Australia, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2005;44(Pt 2):227–39. 10.1348/014466505X29657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Silva AN, Vettore MV. Sense of coherence modifies the association between untreated dental Caries and dental pain in low-social status women. Community Dent Health 2016;33:54–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Antony MM, Bieling PJ, Cox BJ, et al. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment 1998;10:176–81. 10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Brown TA, Chorpita BF, Korotitsch W, et al. Psychometric properties of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) in clinical samples. Behav Res Ther 1997;35:79–89. 10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00068-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Beyer KMM, Kaltenbach A, Szabo A, et al. Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11:3453–72. 10.3390/ijerph110303453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Johnson BS, Malecki KM, Peppard PE, et al. Exposure to neighborhood green space and sleep: evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Sleep Health 2018;4:413–9. 10.1016/j.sleh.2018.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Bergmans RS, Coughlin L, Wilson T, et al. Cross-sectional associations of food insecurity with smoking cigarettes and heavy alcohol use in a population-based sample of adults. Drug Alcohol Depend 2019;205:107646. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Hopman WM, Harrison MB, Coo H, et al. Associations between chronic disease, age and physical and mental health status. Chronic Dis Can 2009;29:108–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Meyer OL, Castro-Schilo L, Aguilar-Gaxiola S. Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: a model of socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activity. Am J Public Health 2014;104:1734–41. 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Saville CWN. Not belonging where others do: a cross-sectional analysis of multi-level social capital interactions on health and mental well-being in Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health 2021;75:349–56. 10.1136/jech-2020-215188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Eicher C, Kawachi I. Social capital and community design. In: Making healthy places. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011: 117–28. 10.5822/978-1-61091-036-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Almedom AM. Social capital and mental health: an Interdisciplinary review of primary evidence. Social Science & Medicine 2005;61:943–64. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Glynn TJ. Psychological sense of community: measurement and application. Human Relations 1981;34:789–818. 10.1177/001872678103400904 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Maher MJ, Mora PA, Leventhal H. Depression as a Predictor of perceived social support and demand: a Componential approach using a prospective sample of older adults. Emotion 2006;6:450–8. 10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Park J, Lee DS, Shablack H, et al. When perceptions defy reality: the relationships between depression and actual and perceived Facebook social support. J Affect Disord 2016;200:37–44. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.01.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp001.pdf (47.8KB, pdf)

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp002.pdf (78.5KB, pdf)

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp003.pdf (50.6KB, pdf)

Supplementary data

fmch-2022-001971supp004.pdf (47.8KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data used in this study may be obtained from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW) and are not publicly available.


Articles from Family Medicine and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES