• Democrat voters had poorer mental health after Trump won in 2016

    From Same sporger from albasani neodome@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 3 12:26:50 2022
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.politics.libertarian
    XPost: alt.psychology, talk.politics.guns, free.woke.racist.democrats

    In the month after Trump won the last US election, people living in
    states that voted more for Clinton had an increase in poor mental
    health, while those in Pro-Trump states did not, according to US
    research. The study found that in pro-Clinton states, the average
    number of days on which adults reported experiencing poor mental
    health in the last 30 days increased by half a day, from 3.35 days
    in October to 3.85 days in December 2016. The authors say this half
    a day per adult translated into 54.6 million more days of poor
    mental health in December 2016 alone for the 109.2 million adults
    living in Clinton-voting states.



    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06328-6


    Media release
    Outcome of 2016 US election associated with poorer mental health in
    Clinton voters

    There were 54.6 million more days of poor mental health among adults
    in states that voted for Hillary Clinton in December 2016, compared
    to October 2016, according to a study published in the Journal of
    General Internal Medicine. No such increase in poor mental health
    following the 2016 US election was observed in states that voted for
    Donald Trump. The increase in average number of poor mental health
    days per person in Clinton-voting states largely persisted in the
    six months after the election.

    Comparing states in which Trump had received the most votes with
    states in which Clinton had received the most votes, a team of
    researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, USA,
    and Duke University, Durham, NC, USA found that in Clinton-voting
    states, the average number of days on which adults reported
    experiencing poor mental health in the last 30 days increased by
    0.50 days, from 3.35 days in October to 3.85 days in December 2016.


    The rise in poor mental health days in Clinton-voting states in
    December 2016 was primarily observed in adults aged 65 and older,
    women, and white individuals. No changes in poor mental health days
    were statistically detected among younger age groups, men, or racial
    and ethnic minority groups in December 2016 in either Clinton- or
    Trump-voting states.

    In states that voted for Clinton, the authors also observed a 2
    percentage point increase in the number of people who reported at
    least 14 days of poor mental health in the last 30 days in December
    2016, compared to October 2016, while no such rise was observed in
    Trump-voting states.


    The authors analyzed data on 499,201 adults collected in 2016 and
    2017 as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a
    joint state and federal annual household survey. By comparing each
    monthly cohort of survey respondents, they studied changes in three
    mental health indicators – total days of poor mental health in the
    last 30 days, 14 days or more of poor mental health in the last 30
    days and being diagnosed with a depressive disorder – in Clinton-
    and Trump-voting states in the six months following the November
    2016 election, compared to the six months before the election.

    The authors also found that a 10-percentage point higher margin of
    victory for Trump in the state was associated with 0.41 fewer days
    of poor mental health in Trump-voting states. The inverse is also
    statistically true. In Clinton-states, a 10-percentage point higher
    margin of victory for Clinton in the state predicted 0.41 more days
    of poor mental health.

    Overall, the findings suggest that the outcome of the 2016 election
    had a negative impact on mental health for voters of the candidate
    that lost the election.


    The authors caution that the cross-sectional observational nature of
    the study does not allow for conclusions about cause and effect.
    Because the respondents’ candidate preference and party affiliation
    were unknown, the authors relied on the candidate’s margin of
    victory or loss in a state to assess which candidate’s voters
    experienced changes in mental health.


    -ENDS-

    Attachments:

    Research
    Springer NatureWeb page
    Please link to the article in online versions of your report

    https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/: %20https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06328-6

    https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/democrat-voters-had-poorer-mental- health-after-trump-won-in-2016

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)