The Wellbeing In Place Perceptions Scale: Structure, Validity, Reliability and Correlates during COVID times.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1441996/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Wellbeing In Place Perceptions Scale: Structure, Validity, Reliability and Correlates during COVID times.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1441996/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The influence of place-based factors on the physical and mental health of residents is well established and acknowledged within the population health approach to addressing health and wellbeing inequalities. The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the fore the issues that global communities face. The current UK policy context of ‘levelling up’ represents these concerns and the need to address them. This research examines perceptions of community wellbeing and its determinants as collected within a city region of the North West Coast of England during COVID restrictions between June and August 2020. The paper aims to establish the structure, construct validity and reliability of a new measure of community wellbeing - the Wellbeing in Place Perceptions Scale. Further, it aims to examine how this measure of community wellbeing correlated with symptoms of common mental health as reported by residents of this relatively disadvantaged city region during this unprecedented time. Results indicate that the WIPPS has a reliable and valid structure, correlating significantly with another widely used measure of sense of community and with the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Its relationship to self-reported common mental distress is also clear. Though in need of replication and longitudinal testing, the findings reported here on this new measure remind us that individual and place-based factors combine to influence wellbeing and that community needs to have an increasingly influential role to sustainably prevent future mental health challenges.

Psychology

community wellbeing

factor analysis

mental health

COVID-19

social determinants of health

The role of place-based factors in determining physical and mental health and wellbeing is now well established, rendering the association beyond doubt e.g. (Farrell, Aubry & Coulombe, 2004; Klein, 2004; Bernarda et al., 2007; McGowan et al., 2021). Recent initiatives such as the establishment of Marmot communities in the UK is testament to the importance of tackling these wider social, economic and environmental determinants to address population health and wellbeing and their unequal distribution nationally and internationally. The onset of the global SARS COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has brought an applied focus to the important role that communities play in tackling health and wellbeing challenges. As a result, there has been emphasis on the need to ‘build back better’ (Marmot et., 2020).

While some researchers propose that individual-level factors have greater influence on mental health and wellbeing compared to neighbourhood factors (Propper et al., 2005), others argue that individual, social and physical neighbourhood factors are so interconnected in their influence on health and wellbeing that it is better to integrate and consider them together (Cummins et al., 2007; McElroy et al., 2021), mirroring research into physical health risk and mortality (Zhang et al., 2021). One way of integrating these factors is through a focus on community wellbeing and its determinants. Community wellbeing refers to the collective wellbeing of a group of individuals who represent a given community (Cloutier et al., 2019). Being more than the sum of individual wellbeing of an area, community wellbeing is determined through the combination of social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions identified by an individual and their community as being fundamental for them to achieve their potential and to function effectively (Atkinson et al., 2020; Wiseman & Brasher, 2008; Pennington et al., 2021). Using the constructs of community wellbeing and its determinants unlocks potential to inform how a place can be improved to enhance the overall health and wellbeing of its residents.

Research has successfully identified specific characteristics of a built environment which influence health and wellbeing. These characteristics include housing type and quality, noise levels, crowding, derelict buildings, the presence of ‘environmental goods’ (e.g., children’s play areas) and the provision of green space (Weich et al., 2002; Guite et al., 2006; Evans, 2003; Ellaway et al., 2009; Ward Thompson et al., 2014). For example, one study by Bond et al. (2012), found that the physical aspects of a neighbourhood and the quality of residents’ homes were significantly associated with wellbeing while in a systematic review of 263 studies by Wendelboe-Nelson et al. (2019) around ¾ of studies found a positive association between green space and mental health and wellbeing.

Needless-to-say, other factors are also influential and it is likely the combination of individual place-related factors and their complex interactions that has significant impact on both individual and community wellbeing. As always, the toll of these factors and their interactions are unequally distributed across the population and are thus thought of as the determinants of health and wellbeing inequalities. Poor mental health has been found to be higher in children, adolescents (Morrison Gutman et al., 2015) and adults (WHO, 2000) from low-income families. In contrast, indicators of social advantage such as higher income, being in paid employment, and having a higher level of education have all been found to predict better mental health (Barry, 2009). Furthermore, it is thought that individuals living in environments of concentrated disadvantage, may be more likely to suffer poor physical and mental health due to their increased exposure to adverse life events in comparison to those in socially advantaged circumstances (Whitehead et al., 2016). In addition to this, individuals living in disadvantaged circumstances are likely to have insufficient access to the materials and resources which provide the autonomy and skills to deal with adversities over which they have little control. Lower ‘actual’ and ‘perceived’ control at individual and community levels have been linked to poorer health and wellbeing outcomes (Whitehead et al., 2016; Orton et al., 2019; Pennington et al., 2018).

As well as economic and physical determinants of health and wellbeing, the social capital of places (i.e., the sense of belonging, trust, reciprocity, participation, and co-operation within a community; Chu et al., 2004) significantly influences individual and community wellbeing. Previous research has discovered that having social support, participating in social activities, and being part of a social network are all linked to wellbeing (Cornwell & Laumann, 2015; Munford et al., 2017). Thus, current literature shows not only that social capital is beneficial to wellbeing (Hamano et al., 2010; Barry, 2009; Whiteford et al., 2005), but also that a perceived lack of it can damage the quality of support available in places, ultimately leading to social isolation and loneliness (Taylor et al., 1997).

Recent years have been associated with a strong emphasis on the establishment of ‘objective’ measures of place-based determinants of wellbeing. This is evidenced by the establishment and outputs of the UK’s What Works Centre for Wellbeing and the Office for National Statistics annual collection of wellbeing data across England. The influence upon health and wellbeing of individual beliefs about community and neighbourhood functioning is, however, an area that has been relatively neglected to date. In their conceptual review of community wellbeing, Atkinson et al. (2019) stressed the importance of gathering the collective voice within measures designed to assess community wellbeing. The significance of perceptions or subjective beliefs of how a place functions are of great value when it comes to understanding the impacts of place-based determinants of health and wellbeing. This has been emphasised in research exploring the so-called urbanicity effect (i.e., the higher prevalence of common and serious mental distress in urban areas) showing that the perceived quality of the built and living environment is relevant to understanding the cause of this robust effect (Evans, 2005; Ellaway et al., 2009). More research is needed to unpack complex questions such as how perceptions of the built social fabric of places interacts with objective and subjective social capital (Walsh et al., 2015).

The significance of neighbourhood, community and wellbeing as societal concerns has been highlighted by the COVID-19 global pandemic, which surfaced towards the end of 2019. In response to the spreading virus, nations acted through a combination of confinement and mitigation strategies (Anderson et al., 2020; Parodi & Liu, 2020) in the hope of preventing further spread of the disease. On the 23rd of March 2020 residents in the United Kingdom were advised by the government to only leave their homes for restricted reasons which included shopping for necessities, one daily form of exercise, medical needs, and to go to work if working from home was not possible (Khan et al., 2020). The disruption to everyday social and community life that the pandemic restrictions caused are likely to have taken a particular toll on the mental health and wellbeing of some more than others. Holmes et al. (2020) found in a general UK population survey that worries regarding the psychological impacts of COVID-19 were ranked higher than concerns regarding physical health. It is also believed that these psychological effects may continue to exist long after the pandemic (Wetherall et al., 2020). In a study by Khan et al. (2020), the prevalence of mental health problems in the UK (36.8%) was found to be higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic (around 25%) (Mind, 2020). Likewise, Daly et al. (2020) found a 51% increase in the prevalence of mental health issues as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) in the UK from pre-pandemic to April 2020. Recent studies also appear to have identified a global pattern in specific groups whose mental health appears to have been most burdened by the pandemic. These groups include women, those under the age of 35, those with lower income, unemployed individuals, and those living alone (Pieh et al., 2020; 7 Daly et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2020; Groarke et al., 2020; Devine-Wright et al., 2020). Furthermore, White and Van Der Boar (2020) discovered that people who felt more isolated during lockdown had greater levels of anxiety and depression symptoms, and decreased levels of wellbeing. However, those who felt more connected to their community experienced decreased levels of depressive symptoms and higher quality of life. The researchers also found that participants perceived social support negatively correlated with depression and anxiety levels, and positively correlated with quality of life

While research investigating the psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to emerge, there seems currently to be no research into the effect it has had on community wellbeing or people’s perceptions of community wellbeing. Nor, to date, has there been much research examining how the pandemic has affected perceived determinants of community wellbeing or how community wellbeing may influence individual mental health in these uncertain times. In an analysis of COVID social restrictions responses in the counties of USA, Borgonovi and Andrieu (2020) showed that areas with higher social capital at the outset of the pandemic responded to restrictions more swiftly, identifying the role that established social capital can play in directing community action. While the precise mechanisms underpinning such associations is unclear, support for the beneficial role of pre-existing social infrastructure and of community organisations as cogs within the local system tackling COVID has found support in the UK (Locality, 2020) Other evidence shows that the role of volunteering in one’s community during COVID appeared to retain the same benefits to sense of community and individual wellbeing as pre-pandemic research has consistently pointed to (Bowe et al., 2021). The current study investigates community wellbeing and mental health measured during the first UK lockdown specifically for residents of one disadvantaged city region situated in the North West Coast of England. It employs a newly devised indicator, the Wellbeing in Place Perception Scale (WIPPS; Pennington et al., 2021), as a measure of subjective individual, social, environmental and economic determinants of community wellbeing and of perceived community wellbeing itself. This study first explores the structure of the WIPPS using exploratory factor analysis. The measure’s construct validity is then established by its association with another measure of community wellbeing, Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS) and its internal reliability is tested using Cronbach’s alpha statistics. The study then reports on the relationships that exist between WIPPS and its factors, area IMD and self-reported symptoms of common mental distress.

Participants and procedure

The findings reported here represent a nested sub-study testing the reliability and validity of WIPPS within a household survey aiming to explore the psychological and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residents of a city region in the North West Coast of England. Data was collected through an online survey of 290 people residing in the city region (Ujhelyi Gomez et al, submitted). Participants were recruited through re-contacting participants who had previously responded to the NIHR CLARHC North West Coast Household Health Survey (Giebel et al., 2020) and through advertising the survey via local and social media. The survey received ethical approval from the University of Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (Ref.: 7739). Demographic information collected within the survey included age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, accommodation type, and residential borough, education level and work status before and during the pandemic, as well as the current Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for the area of residence. Further details about this wide-ranging household survey can be found in Ujhelyi Gomez et al (submitted).

Measures

The Wellbeing in Place Perceptions Scale (WIPPS; Pennington et al., 2021) was designed by the Community Wellbeing Evidence Programme of the ‘What Works Centre for Wellbeing’ (Pennington et al., 2021) to support the evaluation of place-based interventions including measuring change as a result of unplanned events, as well as the implementation of national or local policies. The measure was developed based on a systematic scoping review of available indicators of community wellbeing (Bagnall et al., 2017a) and assesses how individual community members perceive their place is functioning for their community. The questionnaire uses positively phrased statements developed using a number of different resources (see Pennington et al., 2021). The first part of the measure comprises 20 items and captures the five thematic determinants of wellbeing in places: mental, social, health, environmental, and economic capitals. Six further statements in the second part of the WIPPS explore general perceptions of community wellbeing as applied to neighbourhoods. Taking into consideration the past month or so, participants were asked to indicate their percentage agreement with each of the 26 statements across sections 1 and 2 of the WIPPS. Table 1 includes the subscales and individual items of the WIPPS as originally devised by Pennington et al., (2021).

Table 1

The subscales and individual items of the Wellbeing in Place Perception Scale.
Sub-scale	Item
SECTION 1
Mental capital
	1. People seem happy here
	2. People seem satisfied with their lives here
	3. Around here people feel that the things they do in their lives are worthwhile
	4. People who live around here don’t seem to be anxious
Social capital
	5. It’s easy to get involved in local activities and groups around here
	6. People feel they can trust their neighbours around here
	7. People feel they can rely on each other around here
	8. People who live around here get on well together
Health capital
	9. On the whole, people who live around here enjoy good health
	10. People who live around here can access local health services easily
	11. Most people in this area have no trouble achieving their daily activities
	12. Around here there are enough opportunities to do things that help to keep people fit and well
Environment capital
	13. Most homes in this area provide a good standard of accommodation for people
	14. Most of the streets, roads and public spaces in this area feel safe to be in
	15. It’s easy to get around in this area without having to use a car
	16. This area has everything people need on a day-to-day basis
Economic capital
	17. People have enough opportunity to find good quality jobs, training or education locally
	18. Most households in this area have enough money to live well on
	19. People in this area are able to move up in the world
	20 People around here tend not to get into too much debt
SECTION 2
Community wellbeing
	21. There are strong networks of relationships and support between the people who live around here
	22. The people who live here feel they can take action to improve things and/or influence decisions made about the area
	23. The people who live here feel they belong here
	24. No-one is left out in this community
	25. This area has a physical environment that helps people to feel good and function well
	26. This area contributes positively to the wellbeing of the people who live here

The Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS; Peterson, Speer & McMillan, 2008) is a widely used 8-item scale that measures the extent to which respondents feel attached to their community. Using a five-point self-report Likert scale with end points of strongly agree to strongly disagree, the BSCS includes four subfactors of needs fulfilment, group membership, influence, and emotional connection to neighbourhood.

The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams; 2001) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7; (Spitzer et al., 2006) were used to measure self-reported symptoms of common mental distress within the past week. Responses on both scales are provided using a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 ‘not at all’ to 3 ‘nearly every day’ with higher total scores indicating more severe symptoms. The PHQ-9 has been found to be a valid and reliable measure both for the identification of depression and for the measurement of its severity (Kroenke et al., 2001). The GAD-7 enjoys similarly high levels of reliability and validity for screening anxiety and its severity in clinical practice and within research settings (Spitzer et al., 2006).

(PHQ − 9 Cronbach’s α = 0.86; GAD-7 Cronbach’s α = 0.91)

Data analysis

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on section 1 (20 items) and section 2 (6 items) of the WIPPS. First, parallel analysis was performed to determine the number of likely components in the data. This was followed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) to confirm the number of items identified by the parallel analysis. Pairwise deletion was used to deal with missing data. Due to the different frequency distributions of the items, more stringent cut-offs are recommended (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) such that 0.32 is considered poor; 0.45 is fair; 0.55 is considered to be a good factor loading; 0.63 and 0.71 are considered to be very good and excellent respectively. Therefore, in this study, a factor loading was considered meaningful at ≥ 0.45 and factors were identified accordingly.

Internal consistency

Cronbach’s alpha reliability test (DeVellis, 2012) estimated the internal consistency of the scale and its newly imputed factors.

Validity and sensitivity

Bivariate correlations were used to demonstrate the construct validity of the WIPPS. The extent to which WIPPS gauged ideas associated with sense of community was determined by examining associations between the WIPPS, the BSCS and their respective factors. The association between self-reported WIPPS and common mental distress was established using bivariate correlations between the WIPPS, the PHQ-9 and GAD-7. The association between WIPPS sections and area IMD was also examined in this way.

WIPPS Summary Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 includes the summary statistics of the measures used. Data were non-normally distributed on all measures.

Table 2

Summary statistics of included measures.
Scales and sub-scales	N	Mean (SD)
WIPPS section 1	286	66.91 (17.97)
WIPPS section 2	262	60.88 (23.16)
BSCS total	287	26.70 (6.38)
BSCS Needs fulfilment	287	7.57 (1.83)
BSCS Membership	287	6.94 (2.03)
BSCS Influence	287	5.63 (1.68)
BSCS Emotional connection	287	5.63 (1.68)
PHQ-9	290	6.56 (6.76)
GAD-7	289	5.28 (5.69)
IMD	262	30.48 (19.06)

Participant Characteristics

Participant demographic and sociodemographic characteristics are reported in Table 3. The mean age was 49.47 ranging between 20 and 84 years. The majority of participants (63.8%) were female and from a white background (93.8%). Over half of the participants (59%) were married or co-habiting and were educated to degree level or above (61%). The majority of people lived in a house (82.4%) with 33.8% living in areas reporting the highest-level of multiple deprivation. Half of the participants worked full-time (50.7%) before the pandemic with 40.4% furloughed or unemployed during the crisis.

Table 3
Participant demographic and sociodemographic characteristics.
Demographic and sociodemographic characteristics	N (%)
Age	288 (99.3%) Mean age (SD) = 49.47 (15.28)
Gender
Male	91 (31.4%)
Female	185 (63.8%)
Total	279
Ethnicity
Non-white	16 (5.5%)
White	272 (93.8%)
Total	288
Marital status
Single/Separated/Divorced/Widowed	113 (39%)
Married/registered partnership/co-habiting	171 (59%)
Total	284
Education
No qualification/GCSE/A level	110 (37.9%)
Undergraduate/postgraduate degree	177 (61%)
Total	287
Accommodation
House or bungalow	239 (82.4%)
Flat/room (Self-contained flat, maisonette, or apartment/ Room or rooms)	49 (16.9%)
Total	288
IMD*
≤ 8.49	7 (2.4%)
8.5 to 13.79	51 (17.6%)
13.8 to 21.35	59 (20.3%)
21.36 to 34.17	47 (16.2%)
≥ 34.18	98 (33.8%)
Total	262
Work status before the pandemic
Full-time employed/Self-employed	147 (50.7%)
Part-time employed	48 (16.6%)
Full-time student/ Part-time student	17 (5.9%)
Unemployed/Housewife/housebound	65 (22.4%)
Total	277
Work status currently
Working as normal (Key worker/working in the workplace)	68 (23.5%)
Working from home (Employed)	105 (36.2%)
Furloughed/unemployed (including unemployed and claiming benefits/not working?)	117 (40.4%)
Total	290
*IMD: Index of Multiple Deprivation Quintile group (where ≥ 34.18 is most deprived 20% of Lower-layer Super Output Area, 2019);

WIPPS Structure, Construct Validity, and Reliability

The first aim of the study was to establish the factor structure, content validity, and reliability of the WIPPS. The theoretical structure of the scale (section 1 and section 2) was explored through EFA and results are reported below. This is followed by the reporting of scale reliability. Finally, construct validity is demonstrated through correlations with the BSCS.

Exploratory factor analysis: WIPPS Section 1

Data (20 items) were subjected to PCA. The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of sampling adequacy was 0.91, well above the recommendation of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) indicating that distinct and reliable factors could be produced and, therefore, the data were sufficient for EFA. Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance (p < .001) demonstrating patterned relationships amongst the variables. Based on an eigenvalue cut-off of 1.0, two factors explained a cumulative variance of 65.91%. The scree plot and parallel analysis (Pallant, 2005) indicated the retention of two factors. Table 4 below provides factor loadings subsequent to rotation with a significant factor criterion of .45 after ‘forcing’ a two-factor solution (factor 1 = People; factor 2 = Place) in SPSS.

Table 4

WIPPS Section 1 factor loadings subsequent to rotation.
			WIPPS Section 1		Pattern coefficients
Item number	N	Missing (%)	Item content	Original WIPPS subscale	Factor 1 People	Factor 2 Place
Q107_7	231	59(20.3)	People feel they can rely on each other around here.	Social Capital	.98	− .13
Q107_6	249	41(14.1)	People feel they can trust their neighbours around here.	Social Capital	.92	− .07
Q107_8	251	39(13.4)	People who live around here get on well together.	Social Capital	.91	− .10
Q107_2	240	50(17.2)	People seem satisfied with their lives here.	Mental Capital	.83	.11
Q107_1	252	38(13.1)	People seem happy here.	Mental Capital	.80	.08
Q107_3	169	121(41.7)	Around here people feel that the things they do in their lives are worthwhile.	Mental Capital	.73	.25
Q107_4	194	96(33.1)	People who live around here don’t seem to be anxious.	Mental Capital	.73	− .05
Q108_3_	260	30(10.3)	Most homes in this area provide a good standard of accommodation for people.	Environment Capital	.58	.31
Q107_5	231	59(20.3)	It’s easy to get involved in local activities and groups around here.	Social Capital	.58	.15
Q107_9	208	82(28.3)	On the whole, people who live around here enjoy good health.	Health Capital	.53	.35
Q108_4	276	14(4.8)	Most of the streets, roads and public spaces in this area feel safe to be in.	Environment Capital	.48	.43
Q108_7	198	92(31.7)	People have enough opportunity to find good quality jobs, training or education locally.	Economic Capital	− .01	.84
Q108_5	273	17(5.9)	It’s easy to get around in this area without having to use a car.	Environment Capital	− .14	.79
Q108_6	272	18(6.2)	This area has everything people need on a day-to-day basis.	Environment Capital	− .10	.78
Q108_2	243	47(16.2)	Around here there are enough opportunities to do things that help to keep people fit and well.	Health Capital	.19	.71
Q107_10	250	40(13.8)	People who live around here can access local health services easily.	Health Capital	.03	.67
Q108_8	186	104(35.9)	Most households in this area have enough money to live well on.	Economic Capital	.27	.66
Q108_1	177	113(39)	Most people in this area have no trouble achieving their daily activities.	Health Capital	.12	.64
Q108_9	182	108(37.2)	People in this area are able to move up in the world.	Economic Capital	.35	.64
Q108_10	113	177(61)	People around here tend not to get into too much debt.	Economic Capital	.38	.55
			% of variance explained		57.42%	8.49%

Exploratory factor analysis: WIPPS Section 2

A PCA was conducted on the six items of WIPPS section 2. The KMO value of sampling adequacy was 0.87 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance (p < .001). The eigenvalue of one factor exceeded 1 and that single factor explained 79.16% of variance. The scree plot confirmed a one-factor model. As only one factor was extracted, the solution could not be rotated. Table 5 includes the factor loadings.

Table 5

WIPPS Section 2 factor loadings (Component matrix)
WIPPS Section 2 – Community wellbeing
Item number	N	Missing (%)	Item	Factor 1: Community Wellbeing
Q109_2	204	86(29.7)	The people who live here feel they can take action to improve things and/or influence decisions made about the area.	.92
Q109_6	225	65(22.4)	This area contributes positively to the wellbeing of the people who live here.	.91
Q109_4	182	108(37.2)	No-one is left out in this community.	.89
Q109_3	202	88(30.3)	The people who live here feel they belong here.	.88
Q109_5	229	61(21)	This area has a physical environment that helps people to feel good and function well.	.87
Q109_1	224	66(22.8)	There are strong networks of relationships and support between the people who live around here.	.87
			% of variance explained	79.16%

Internal Consistency

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .98 overall, exceeding the recommended minimum value of .7 (DeVellis, 2012), as well as the higher and preferred value of .8 (Pallant, 2005), demonstrating an excellent level of internal consistency for the full scale in the data of this study. Additionally, good and excellent internal reliability was found for each factor. Table 6 includes the Cronbach’s alphas for the sub-scales.

Table 6

WIPPS Full scale and sub-scale internal consistency.
Scale/sub-scale	Number of items	Cronbach’s alpha (𝛼)
Full scale	26	.98
People	11	.95
Place	9	.93
Community wellbeing	6	.95

Construct Validity: WIPPS and BSCS

A significant positive correlation was found between section 1 of the WIPPS and the full BSCS scale, r₃(283) = .55, p < .001. Additionally, section 1 of the WIPPS also correlated with all BSCS sub-scales: needs fulfilment, r₃(283) = .45, p < .001, membership r₃(283) = .49, p < .001, influence r₃(283) = .41, p < .001, and emotional connection r₃(283) = .41, p < .001. Finally, the factor 1 (People) and factor 2 (Place) of the WIPPS section 1 were significantly correlated with each of the BSCS sub-scale. Results are included in Table 7.

A significant positive correlation was also found between section 2 of the WIPPS and the full BSCS scale, r₃(260) = .62, p < .001 and between section 2 of the WIPPS and all BSCS sub-scales: needs fulfilment r₃(260) = .44, p < .001, membership r₃(260) = .54, p < .001, influence r₃(260) = .51, p < .001, and emotional connection r₃(260) = .51, p < .001.

Table 7

Spearman’s correlation between WIPPS section 1 sub-scales and BSCS sub-scales.
Sub-scales	Correlation coefficient
WIPPS People
BSCS Needs fulfilment	.449**
BSCS Membership	.511**
BSCS Influence	.468**
BSCS Emotional connection	.468**
WIPPS Place
BSCS Needs fulfilment	.444**
BSCS Membership	.387**
BSCS Influence	.303**
BSCS Emotional connection	.303**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

WIPPS, Mental Health and Area Disadvantage

The second aim of the study was to examine how this new measure of community wellbeing and its determinants correlated with symptoms of mental health and level of deprivation. Statistically significant negative correlations for both sections of the WIPPS and depression, anxiety, and deprivation data were found as reported in Table 8.

Table 8

Spearman’s correlations between WIPPS, mental health and IMD.
Measure		N	Spearman’s rho
PHQ-9	WIPPS Section 1 Total	286	− .39 *
	Factor 1: People	255	− .38*
	Factor 2: Place	226	− .35*
	WIPPS Section 2	262	− .36*
GAD-7	WIPPS Section 1 Total	285	− .33*
	Factor 1: People	255	− .32*
	Factor 2: Place	226	− .29*
	WIPPS Section 2	261	− .26*
IMD	WIPPS Section 1 Total	258	− .40*
	Factor 1: People	230	− .41*
	Factor 2: Place	202	− .49*
	WIPPS Section 2	236	− .40*
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

The analysis reported here had two main aims. First, it aimed to establish the structure, construct validity and reliability of the Wellbeing in Place Perceptions Scale (Pennington et al., 2021), a new measure of perceived community wellbeing and its individual, social, environmental and economic determinants. Second, it aimed to examine how the measure of perceived community wellbeing correlated with symptoms of common mental health as reported by residents of a relatively disadvantaged city region on the North West Coast of England during COVID lockdown, a time when the prevalence of common mental distress was reported to be high (Khan et al., 2020; Daly et al., 2020) and when the significance of community and neighbourhood functioning to individual functioning was gaining profile. (e.g. White and Van Der Boar, 2020)

The original formulation of the WIPPS was derived from a thematic meta-synthesis of evidence (Pennington et al., (2021) from a group of systematic reviews conducted by the community wellbeing evidence programme of the What Works Centre for Wellbeing (Bagnall et al., 2017b); Bagnall et al., 2018; Cambers et al., 2018; Pennington et al., 2018; Pennington et al;, 2019). It was divided into two sections to explore, in combination, individuals’ perceptions of how their area functioned to support the needs of its residents wider (determinants of community wellbeing) and the perceived level of community wellbeing itself. As described by the authors, its questions were designed to align with existing indicators of the subcomponents that made it up (e.g. ONS measures of subjective wellbeing and social capital). While the original formulation had five components in section 1 and one in section 2, the EFA conducted here indicated that the data best fitted a three-factor structure – two factors, named People and Place, within section 1 and the single factor of community wellbeing in section 2. Cronbach’s alpha statistic suggested high internal reliability of the measure as a whole and the construct validity of the WIPPS was supported by significant positive correlations between its factors, its total score and the total and subscale scores of the BSCS. This demonstrates that the WIPPS taps into the same constructs as those measured by the BSCS while asking different questions in distinct ways.

Further support for the validity of the WIPPS and its 3 factors comes in the form of its significant negative correlations with the IMD data collected as part of the survey. These ranged from 0.4 to 0.49 all with significance at 0.01 level.

The WIPPS tool is a valuable addition to the available indicator set examining sense of community as it combines, within two short integrated sections, opinions about the determinants of community wellbeing with an overall sense of community functioning. These two sections, which can be used together or independently, use a percentage Likert scale aiming to maximise sensitivity to change in functioning following planned or unplanned alterations in place conditions. Furthermore, in using a flexible definition of place (See Pennington et al., 2021), the WIPPS can be used by different stakeholders in distinct settings and at different scales, depending on the nature of enquiry.

In line with prior research (e.g. Farrell et al., 2004; White and Van Der Boar, 2020) and addressing the second aim of the research, the WIPPS was found to correlate significantly with the two measures of common mental distress used in the survey – the PHQ9 and the GAD7. This shows that symptoms of mental distress are reported to be higher in those individuals who perceive that their place of residence supports lower levels of community wellbeing generally and which they perceive as functioning less well in support of the people who live there. Together these findings attest to the importance of community functioning and neighbourhood characteristics as drivers of mental distress. Thus, individual and place-based determinants of mental health are bound together in ways that are difficult to untangle, perhaps suggesting that it may be meaningless to try to do so (Cummins et al., 2007; McElroy et al., 2021). This has important implications for how society addresses and attempts to tackle the ever-increasing burden of common mental distress. Being less consistent with traditional individualised psychiatric and psychological approaches and more aligned with the population health approach, it supports more integrated policy making such as health and wellbeing in all polices (WHO, 2014). Accepting this premise suggests that the effective long-term treatment of common mental health concerns should no longer be the sole remit of the psychologist or the GP working with an individual ‘service user’ but rather requires the collaboration of health and non-health sectors to eradicate the unfair and unequal disadvantages that many communities face and which are measurable in the neighbourhoods of this and other nations (Marmot, 2020; Public Health England, 2017). The role of place and community in determining wellbeing and suffering is far from a new idea. However, for communities to effectively address their wellbeing needs, a different approach to funding and delivery of mental health care more focussed on prevention and towards addressing long-standing structural inequities is needed. With today’s focus on levelling up in the UK having a clear link to wellbeing (Gov.UK, DLUHC, 2022; Hey, 2022) the role of our neighbourhoods, villages towns, cities and regions in addressing long-standing, intractable human concerns will be increasingly acknowledged.

The findings reported here require replication in other places, with other samples and at other times when societal concerns, behaviours and the prevailing mood have returned to something more like pre-pandemic norms. The extent to which the COVID 19 context of data collection skewed the findings reported here is difficult to judge. This alone makes replication essential.

Assessing the extent to which the new measure is sensitive to planned and unplanned changes within places over time requires longitudinal data collection. While the survey we conduced was repeated after 12 weeks, unfortunately the drop out was significant, limiting our ability to report change over a 12-week duration of COVID restrictions. The changeable nature of the imposed restrictions during this 12-week period would also have influenced findings in relation to WIPPS responses as well as self-reported common mental distress.

The online household survey, of which these measures were a part, was launched on 15/06/2020 and was live until 03/08/2020. While the sample was reasonably representative of the city region in terms of deprivation, it was disproportionately female and relatively highly educated with these biases likely to have impacted the findings reported here for mental health especially as prior research has indicated that the mental health burden of the pandemic affected women more than men (e.g. Pieh et al., 2020). However, the educational profile of this sample might be seen as protective against high levels of common mental distress as could the employment profile with approximately 67% being in either part- or full-time employment.

In terms of the WIPPS measure itself, it was clear from the pattern of missing data across questions that some items felt easier to estimate than others. Responses to do with estimating others’ individual wellbeing and their subjective financial circumstances seemed to be most likely to give rise to missing data, suggesting a relative lack of confidence in these particular estimates. Therefore, some further consideration as to the most appropriate response scale to use with WIPPS items is needed to enable respondents to provide answers they feel more comfortable with. For example, an alternative format might be a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree with a ‘neutral’ option at its midpoint.

In conclusion, the data analysed here suggests that the WIPPS is a valid and reliable measure of community wellbeing and its determinants. It gathers a collective, subjective view which is coherently structured to enable assessment of the drivers and facets of community wellbeing. As such it permits a proper engagement with this complex construct. Our data showed that one’s sense of community wellbeing and opinions about how places serve their residents is bound up with one’s self-reported mental health. This provides a timely reminder that common mental distress is as much a societal as an individual issue. It therefore needs addressing across sectors adopting a place-based approach if we are to sustainably prevent health, mental health and wellbeing issues for our future generations.

Declarations of competing interest: None

Funding: This work was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC); grant number: ES/N003756/1: Bringing Wellbeing to the Community - Community of Place evidence programme). It was also supported by the University of Liverpool COVID-19 Strategic Fund.

*Authors are fully or partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The Lancet, 395(10228), 931-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5

Atkinson, S., Bagnall, A. M., Corcoran, R., South, J., & Curtis, S. (2020). Being well together: Individual subjective and community wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(5), 1903-1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00146-2

Bagnall, A. M., South, J., Mitchell, B., Pilkington, G., Newton, R., & Di Martino, S. (2017a). Systematic scoping review of indicators of community wellbeing in the UK. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing. https://tinyurl.com/yc23gtz8

Bagnall, A., South, J., Di Martino, S., Mitchell, B., Pilkington, G., & Newton, R. (2017b). Systematic scoping review of reviews of the evidence for “what works to boost social relations” and its relationship to community wellbeing. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.

Bagnall, A.M., South, J., Di Martino, S., Southby, K., Mitchell, B., Pilkington, G., Pennington, A., & Corcoran, R. (2018). A systematic review of interventions to boost social relations through improvements in community infrastructure (places and spaces). London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing

Bernard, P., Charafeddine, R., Frohlich, K. L., Daniel, M., Kestens, Y., & Potvin, L. (2007). Health inequalities and place: A theoretical conception of neighbourhood. Social science & medicine (1982), 65(9), 1839–1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.037

Barry, M. M. (2009). Addressing the determinants of positive mental health: Concepts, evidence and practice. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 11(3), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2009.9721788

Bond, L., Kearns, A., Mason, P., Tannahill, C., Egan, M., & Whitley, E. (2012). Exploring the relationships between housing, neighbourhoods and mental wellbeing for residents of deprived areas. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-48

Borgonovi, F., & Andrieu, E. (2020). Bowling together by bowling alone: Social capital and COVID-19. Social science & medicine (1982), 265, 113501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113501

Bowe, M., Wakefield, J., Kellezi, B., Stevenson, C., McNamara, N., Jones, B. A., Sumich, A., & Heym, N. (2021). The mental health benefits of community helping during crisis: Coordinated helping, community identification and sense of unity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 10.1002/casp.2520. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2520

Cambers, D., Cantrell, A., Preston, L., Peasgood, T., Paisley, S., Clowes, M. (2018). Systematic review of the evidence on housing interventions for ‘housing-vulnerable’ adults and its relationship to wellbeing. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.

Chu, A., Thorne, A., Guite, H. (2004). The impact on mental well-being of the urban and physical environment: An assessment of the evidence. Journal of Public Mental Health, 3(2), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200400010

Cloutier, S., Ehlenz, M. M., & Afinowich, R. (2019). Cultivating community wellbeing: Guiding principles for research and practice. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 2(3), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00033-x

Comrey, L.A. & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cornwell, B., & Laumann, E. O. (2015). The health benefits of network growth: New evidence from a national survey of older adults. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 94-106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.011

Cummins, S., Curtis, S., Diez-Roux, A. V., & Macintyre, S. (2007). Understanding and representing 'place' in health research: a relational approach. Social science & medicine (1982), 65(9), 1825–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.036

Daly, M., Sutin, A. R., & Robinson, E. (2020). Longitudinal changes in mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the UK household longitudinal study. Psychological Medicine, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720004432

DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale Development Theory and Applications. Sage Publications, New York.

Devine-Wright, P., Pinto de Carvalho, L., Di Masso, A., Lewicka, M., Manzo, L., & Williams, D. R. (2020). “Re-placed” – Reconsidering relationships with place and lessons from a pandemic. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101514

Ellaway, A., Morris, G., Curtice, J., Robertson, C., Allardice, G., & Robertson, R. (2009). Associations between health and different types of environment incivility: A Scotland-wide study. Public Health, 123(11), 708-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.019

Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 80(4), 536-555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg063

Farrell, S. J., Aubry, T., & Coulombe, D. (2004). Neighborhoods and neighbors: Do they contribute to personal wellbeing? Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10082

Giebel, C., McIntyre, J. C., Alfirevic, A., Corcoran, R., Daras, K., Downing, J., Gabbay, M., Pirmohamed, M., Popay, J., Wheeler, P., Holt, K., Wilson, T., Bentall, R., & Barr, B. (2020). The longitudinal NIHR ARC North West Coast Household Health Survey: exploring health inequalities in disadvantaged communities. BMC public health, 20(1), 1257. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09346-5

Groarke, J. M., Berry, E., Graham-Wisener, L., McKenna-Plumley, P. E., McGlinchey, E., & Armour, C. (2020). Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from the COVID-19 psychological wellbeing study. PLoS ONE, 15(9), Article e0239698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239698

Guite, H. F., Clark, C., & Ackrill, G. (2006). The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health, 120(12), 1117-1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.005

Hamano, T., Fujisawa, Y., Ishida, Y., Subramanian, S. V., Kawachi, I., & Shiwaku, K. (2010). Social capital and mental health in Japan: A multilevel analysis. PloS One, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013214

Hey, N. (2022). Levelling up and measuring wellbeing. What Works Wellbeing. https://whatworkswellbeing.org/blog/levelling-up-and-measuring-wellbeing/

Holmes, E. A., O’Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arsenault, L., Ballard, C., Christensen, H., Cohen Silver, R., Everall, I., Ford, T., John, A., Kabir, T., King, K., Madan, I., Michie, S., Pryzbylski, A. K., Shafran, R., Sweeney, A., Worthman, C. M., …Bullmore, E. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1

Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Khan, K. S., Mamum, M. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Ullah, I. (2020). The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across different cohorts. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00367-0

Klein, H. (2004). Health Inequality, social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal: Can place-based renewal improve the health of disadvantaged communities? Australian Journal of Primary Health 10(3) 110 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY04054

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R.L., & Williams, J.B.W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606-613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

Locality (2020). We Were Built for This. How community originations helped us through the coronavirus crisis - and how we can build a better future. London: Locality. Available from https://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/We-were-built-for-this-Locality-2020.06.13.pdf. Accessed on 20 January, 2022.

Marmot, M., Allen, J., Goldblatt, P., Herd, E., & Morrison, J. (2020). Build Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review. The Pandemic, Socioeconomic and Health Inequalities in England. London: Institute of Health Equity. Available from https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/Build-back-fairer--Exec-summary.pdf. Accessed on 20 January, 2022.

McElroy, E., Ashton, M., Bagnall, A.M., Comerford, T., McKeown, M., Patalay, P., Pennington, A., South, J., Wilson, T., & Corcoran, R. (2021). The individual, place, and wellbeing – a network analysis. BMC Public Health 21, 1621 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11553-7

McGowan, V. J., Buckner, S., Mead, R., McGill, E., Ronzi, S., Beyer, F., & Bambra, C. (2021). Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health 21, 1888. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11852-z

Mind UK. (2020, June). Mental health facts and statistics. Available from https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/statistics-and-facts-about-mental-health/how-common-are-mental-health-problems/. Accessed on 25 February, 2022.

Morrison Gutman, L., Joshi, H., Parsonage, M., & Schoon, L. (2015). Children of the new century: Mental health findings from the millennium cohort study. Centre for Mental Health Report. London, UK: Centre for Mental Health.

Munford, L. A., Sidaway, M., Blakemore, A., Sutton, M., & Bower, P. (2017). Associations of participation in community assets with health-related quality of life and healthcare usage: A cross-sectional study of older people in the community. BMJ Open; 7:e012374. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012374

Orton, L. C., Pennington, A., Nayak, S., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., White, M., & Whitehead, M. (2019). What is the evidence that differences in 'control over destiny' lead to socioeconomic inequalities in health? A theory-led systematic review of high-quality longitudinal studies on pathways in the living environment. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 73(10), 929–934. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-212565

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (version 12) (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Parodi, S. M., & Liu, V. X. (2020). From containment to mitigation of COVID-19 in the

US. JAMA, 323(15), 1141-1442. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2763187

Pennington, A., Watkins, M., Bagnall, A. M., South, J., & Corcoran, R. (2018). A systematic review of evidence on the impacts of joint decision-making on community wellbeing. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.

Pennington, A., Jones, R., Bagnall, A. M., South, J., & Corcoran, R. (2019). Heritage and wellbeing: The impact of historic places and assets on community wellbeing – a scoping review. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.

Pennington, A., South, J., Bagnall, A., Bharadwa, M., & Corcoran, R. (2021). The Wellbeing Inequality Assessment Toolkit: The wellbeing in place perceptions scale (WIPPS), 2021. [Report]. Available from https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3116865/1/WIAT%20WIPPS%20-%202021.pdf. Accessed on 01 October, 2021.

Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., & McMillan, D. W. (2008). Validation of A brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20217

Pieh, C., Budimir, S., & Probst, T. (2020). The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 136, 110185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110186

Propper, C., Jones, K., Bolster, A., Burgess, S., Johnston, R., & Sarker, R. (2005). Local neighbourhood and mental health: evidence from the UK. Social science & medicine (1982), 61(10), 2065–2083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.013

Public Health England (2017). Psychosocial pathways and health outcomes: Informing action on health inequalities. London: Public Health England. Available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647709/Psychosocial_pathways_and_health_equity.pdf. Accessed on 17 February, 2022.

Smith, L., Jacob, L., Yakkundi, A., McDermott, D., Armstrong, N. C., Barnett, Y., López-Sánchez, G. F., Martin, S., Butler, L., & Tully, M. A. (2020). Correlates of symptoms of anxiety and depression and mental wellbeing associated with COVID-19: A cross-sectional study of UK-based respondents. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113138

Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., and Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalised anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092-1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Taylor, S. E., Repetti, R. L., & Seeman, T. (1997). Health psychology: What is an unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin? Annual Review, 48(1), 411-447. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.411

UK Government, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2022) Levelling Up the United Kingdom; White Paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/levelling-up-the-united-kingdom

Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., & Roe, J. (2014). Access to green space in disadvantaged urban communities: Evidence of salutogenic effects based on biomarker and self-report measures of wellbeing. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 153, 10-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.036

Walsh, D., McCartney, G., McCullough, S., van der Pol, M., Buchanan, D., & Jones, R. (2015). Comparing levels of social capital in three northern post-industrial UK cities. Public health, 129(6), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.02.024

Weich, S., Blanchard, M., Prince, M., Burton, E., Erens, B., & Sproston, K. (2002). Mental health and the built environment: Cross-sectional survey of individual and contextual risk factors for depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(5), 428-433. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.5.428

Wendelboe-Nelson, C., Kelly, S., Kennedy, M., & Cherrie, J. W. (2019). A scoping review mapping research on green space and associated mental health benefits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(12), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122081

Wetherall, K., Cleare, S., McClelland, H., Zortea, T., Robb, K., & O’Connor, R. (2020). Scottish COVID-19 (SCOVID) mental health tracker study: Wave 1 report. Scottish Government. Available from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/36616/1/scottish-covid-19-scovid-mental-health-tracker-study-wave-1-report.pdf. Accessed on 24 February, 2022.

White, R. G., & Van Der Boor, C. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and initial period of lockdown on the mental health and well-being of adults in the UK. BJPsych Open, 6(5), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2020.79

Whiteford, H., Cullen, M., & Baingana, F. (2005). Social capital and mental health. In H. Herrman, S. Saxen, & R. Moodie (Eds.), Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice (pp. 70-80). World Health Organisation.

Whitehead, M., Pennington, A., Orton, L., Nayak, S., Petticrew, M., Sowden, A., & White, M. (2016). How could differences in ‘control over destiny’ lead to socio-economic inequalities in health? A synthesis of theories and pathways in the living environment. Health & Place, 39:51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.02.002

Wiseman, J., & Brasher, K. (2008). Community wellbeing in an unwell world: Trends, challenges, and possibilities. Journal of Public Health Policy, 29(3), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2008.16

World Health Organisation (2000). Women and mental health: An evidence based review. Geneva, World Health Organisation.

World Health Organization. (2014). Health in all policies: Helsinki statement. Framework for country action.

Zhang, Y-B., Chen, C., Pan, X-F., Guo, J., Li, Y., Franco, O.H., Liu, G., & Pan, A. (2021) Associations of healthy lifestyle and socio-economic status with mortality and incident cardiovascular disease: Two prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2021;373:n604; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n604

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Wellbeing In Place Perceptions Scale: Structure, Validity, Reliability and Correlates during COVID times.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Participants and procedure

Measures

Data analysis

Exploratory factor analysis

Internal consistency

Validity and sensitivity

Results

WIPPS Summary Descriptive Statistics

Participant Characteristics

WIPPS Structure, Construct Validity, and Reliability

Exploratory factor analysis: WIPPS Section 1

Exploratory factor analysis: WIPPS Section 2

Internal Consistency

Construct Validity: WIPPS and BSCS

WIPPS, Mental Health and Area Disadvantage

Discussion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1