Table 4.

Odds ratios (95% CIs) for associations between common mental disorders ‘case’ status, income inequality and income deprivation in four-level multilevel logistic regression models^a

	Odds ratios (95% CI)
	Model 1 (null + income inequality)	Model 2 (null + income deprivation + income inequality)	Model 3 (model 2 + individual and household variablesb)	Model 4 (model 3 + neighbourhood pairsc)	Model 5 (model 4 + unitary authority income inequality)
Quintiles of income inequality
Lowest	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Low	1.09 (1.06–1.13)	0.98 (0.95–1.01)	1.02 (0.99–1.05)	1.02 (0.99–1.05)	1.02 (0.99–1.05)
Middle	1.06 (1.02–0.09)	0.94 (0.91–0.97)	0.98 (0.95–1.01)	1.01 (0.97–1.04)	1.00 (0.97–1.04)
High	0.99 (0.96–1.03)	0.89 (0.86–0.92)	0.95 (0.92–0.98)	1.00 (0.95–1.05)	1.00 (0.95–1.05)
Highest	0.74 (0.71–0.77)	0.79 (0.77–0.82)	0.90 (0.87–0.92)	0.95 (0.90–1.00)	0.95 (0.90–1.00)
Quintiles of income deprivation
Lowest		Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Low		1.15 (1.11–1.19)	1.03 (1.00–1.06)	1.03 (1.00–1.06)	1.03 (1.00–1.06)
Middle		1.37 (1.32–1.41)	1.11 (1.07–1.14)	1.09 (1.05–1.13)	1.09 (1.05–1.13)
High		1.63 (1.57–1.68)	1.22 (1.18–1.26)	1.18 (1.12–1.24)	1.18 (1.12–1.25)
Highest		1.98 (1.92–2.05)	1.24 (1.19–1.28)	1.20 (1.14–1.26)	1.20 (1.14–1.26)
Income inequality and income deprivation pairsc
Low inequality + low deprivation				Reference	Reference
High inequality + low deprivation				0.92 (0.88–0.97)	0.92 (0.88–0.97)
High inequality + high deprivation				0.98 (0.92–1.04)	0.98 (0.92–1.04)
Low inequality + high deprivation				1.00 (0.96–1.04)	1.00 (0.96–1.04)
Unitary authority income inequalityd
Low inequality					Reference
High inequality					1.13 (1.04–1.22)

^aCases of common mental disorder were defined as a Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) score ≤60. Income inequality was measured using quintiles of the lower super output area (LSOA) Gini coefficient. Income deprivation was measured using quintiles of the LSOA distribution of low-income households.

^bThe individual and household variables were age group, gender, social class, employment status, highest educational qualification and housing tenure.

^cLower super output areas were categorised into one of four pairs of high- or low-income inequality and high- or low-income deprivation scores.

^dUnitary authority income inequality modelled as a binary variable above and below the median Gini coefficient.