Abstract
Past studies have shown that the more unaffordable housing is to people, the worse their health, particularly mental health. However, the commonly used housing affordability indicator, the 30% measure, has limitations. There is evidence that other indicators, including the ‘30/40’ measure, might be more precise in characterizing housing unaffordability by taking into account absolute values of household incomes. In this paper, we use cross-sectional data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, to evaluate relationships between two affordability measures (30%, 30/40) with 3 health measures: general, physical and mental health. We use logistic regression and effect modification to test whether relationships varied by age, ethnicity, housing tenure, urbanicity and sex. Out of 35,114 participants with complete data, housing was classified as unaffordable for 24.2% using the 30% measure and 10.2% for the 30/40 measure. In age-adjusted analyses, higher unaffordability was associated with worse health for all three health measures, with associations stronger for the 30/40 vs the 30% unaffordability measure. In models adjusted for age, sex and urbanicity, both ethnicity and tenure independently modified associations; with modification showing small differences by unaffordability and health measure. Further studies are needed to disentangle complex relationships between household income, housing costs, ethnicity and tenure.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval was received from the University of Essex Ethics Committee.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data set used in this study is available at www.understandingsociety.ac.uk.
