You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 73, Issue 2
  • The EU referendum and mental health in the short term: a natural experiment using antidepressant prescriptions in England

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Research report
The EU referendum and mental health in the short term: a natural experiment using antidepressant prescriptions in England
  1. Sotiris Vandoros1,2,
  2. Mauricio Avendano1,2,
  3. Ichiro Kawachi2
  1. 1 King’s College London, London, UK
  2. 2 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sotiris Vandoros, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UK; vandoros{at}hsph.harvard.edu

Abstract

Background Previous research has highlighted the impact of economic conditions and uncertainty on physical and mental health. The unexpected result of the Brexit referendum in 2016 triggered high levels of economic uncertainty.

Objective To examine whether prescriptions for antidepressants increased after the referendum result, benchmarking them against other drug classes.

Methods We used GP practice prescribing data to compile the number of defined daily doses per capita every month in each of the 326 voting areas in England over the period 2011–2016. We used a difference-in-differences (DID) approach to identify the effects of Brexit on antidepressant prescriptions, compared with trends in a control group (antigout and iron preparations) that were unlikely to be associated with uncertainty and depression.

Results Antidepressant prescribing continued to increase after the referendum but at a slower pace. Therapeutic classes used as controls showed a decrease. The DID approach shows that there was a relative increase of 13.4% in antidepressants compared with other therapeutic classes (DID coeff: 0.134; 95% CI 0.093 to 0.174).

Conclusion Our results are open to different interpretations and should be treated with caution. This relative increase in antidepressant prescribing after the referendum may be attributed to increased uncertainty for certain parts of the population, but does not rule out an improvement in mood for others. Alternatively, some other factor—for example, distraction, might have contributed to a decrease in the control therapeutic classes. A possible policy implication is that programmes for the promotion of mental health may need to be intensified during periods of uncertainty.

  • mental health
  • depression
  • public health

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-210637

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom unexpectedly voted to leave the European Union. There was much at stake in the run-up to the referendum: leaving the EU was expected to greatly affect the British economy and society, including areas such as free trade, immigration, social services and rule of EU law. During the referendum campaign, it was claimed that Brexit would affect the right of EU nationals to live and work in the UK, and might affect UK and other nationals working for foreign companies that would decide to move to another EU country. The Brexit vote also sparked concerns about a possible economic downturn. Such uncertainty was captured by the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, which reached unprecedented levels after the referendum.1 For the majority, who voted in favour of leaving the EU, the result may have been positive. However, after the result, the governor of the Bank of England warned of lower living standards, higher inflation, job cuts and even a recession as a result of leaving the EU2–5 and argued that uncertainty had been building up over Brexit.6 The ‘anxiety, unknowability of the changing political situation’ after Brexit were even described in two recent songs by Mick Jagger, according to the artist.7

    Although most changes are yet to materialise, an important question is whether the economic uncertainty and political upheaval following the Brexit vote led to psychological distress, similar to that registered after (positive or negative) shocks in other countries. For example, evidence suggests that terrorist attacks can affect mental health nationally, and this effect is not limited to those who experience the attack.8

    Some might expect negative financial consequences due to leaving the EU,2–5 which may translate into negative mental health outcomes even before changes in employment materialise. For example, while extensive reports show that deteriorating economic conditions are often associated with worse health9–12 or suicide,12–17 a spike in suicides cannot always be fully explained by increased unemployment. This increase in suicide rates may reflect uncertainty associated with poor macroeconomic performance, which may resemble to some extent the uncertainty associated with the Brexit vote. Likewise, the Brexit vote may also have forced households to rethink their future plans, particularly older workers approaching retirement. For example, during the Great Recession of 2008, both in the USA and Europe, job loss was associated with increased depressive symptoms among older workers,11 partly reflecting the uncertainty around retirement plans, the fear of negative effects of withdrawing from social networks, loss of a social role and social stigma and psychological distress.18–25 Likewise, the literature suggests that chronic job insecurity leads to poorer self-rated health reports and minor psychiatric morbidity (which appear to be long term and remain even after uncertainty has decreased)26 and an increase in healthcare use.27 If the Brexit vote increased the perception of job insecurity, we would expect some of these symptoms to emerge. Overall, this literature suggests that job uncertainty and anticipation of future negative developments can affect mental health.28–31

    Extensive reports suggest that several measures of mental health seem to consistently worsen during economic recessions and improve during economic expansions. Most importantly, studies have consistently found that suicide increases during economic downturns and declines when the economy improves.12–17 This association, however, may also vary across different regions and countries, with not all studies reporting deaths from suicide contrary to the fluctuations in the economic cycle.32–34 Worsening of other mental health outcomes, such as depression, has also been reported.34–36

    The Brexit vote offers a unique natural experiment to examine how a major societal event may influence the mental health of the population. What makes this case unique is that the ‘treatment’ was sudden and unexpected. As voting was coming to an end, even one of the leading proponents of the ‘Leave’ campaign had already conceded defeat.37 Although changes in macroeconomic conditions or political party domination often occur gradually and might be anticipated, in the case of Brexit, people woke up to an unexpected uncertain situation on the morning after the referendum. This sudden nature of the outcome allows us to identify a start date of an intervention in our analysis, as opposed to cases where something builds up over time, thus helping make the empirical analysis clearer.

    Understanding the potential psychological consequences of the Brexit vote for well-being is important for two reasons. First, policymakers may underestimate the potential ‘costs’ of Brexit by focusing only on impacts on the economy or immigration, ignoring potential changes in psychological well-being that may influence economic performance and social cohesion. For example, the literature suggests that economic recessions lead to major changes in consumption that are largely explained by the psychological impact of the recession. Second, from a theoretical perspective, evidence of the psychological impact of Brexit may disclose some of the potential mechanisms that link economic uncertainty to mental health in general,15 30 as any possible effects of the referendum might be a specific example of a general phenomenon.

    The objective of this study was to examine the effect of uncertainty after the Brexit vote on the use of antidepressant medication in England. We used detailed monthly data on prescriptions for antidepressant drugs for all 326 voting areas in England, and benchmarked prescriptions of antidepressants against prescriptions for other drug classes. We hypothesised that an event of this magnitude might lead to an increase in psychological distress, which would translate into an increase in antidepressant drug use.

    Data and methods

    Data

    The GP prescribing database, published by NHS Digital,38 provides data on the monthly number of presentations (boxes) of each drug prescribed by every practice in England. Prescriptions enter the dataset only after they have been dispensed. According to NHS Digital, all registered practices in England are included in the data. When a prescription cannot be linked to a practice, this is excluded, and such prescriptions account for 0.2% of the total sample.38 We used monthly data for the period January 2011 to December 2016. As doses vary across drugs, simply aggregating the total number of milligrams might affect the results. To enable comparison of data across different drugs, the number of boxes was converted into the total number of defined daily doses (DDDs) (as defined and provided by WHO39), as follows: from the raw data included in the GP prescribing database, we first calculated the number of milligrams (number of pills in a box multiplied by the strength of each pill). Different calculations apply for different presentations of the same drug as they include different number of pills or different strengths. Subsequently, we divided the total number of milligrams by the DDD, to obtain the number of DDDs of each drug prescribed by each practice in a month. These were then aggregated across each drug class, and summed by voting area in order to get the total number of DDDs per month prescribed in each voting area in England. There are 326 voting areas in England, with an average of 36.6 practices in each. The number of practices per area ranged between 3 and 355, and the average population per area was 169 534 people. A map of England with the locations of practices is presented in figure A1 in the online supplementary appendix. The number of DDDs prescribed was divided by each voting area’s population (provided by Public Health England) to estimate per-capita prescribing levels. The data were then combined with EU referendum results in each of the 326 voting areas in England (% leave and % remain), as provided by the Electoral Commission.40

    Supplementary file 1

    Antidepressants were defined based on ATC code N06A. For comparison (ie, our control groups of prescriptions), we initially considered prescriptions for a number of therapeutic classes: iron preparations (ATC code: B03A) for treatment of iron-deficiency anaemia, antigout preparations (M04A) for the treatment of gout, a type of inflammatory arthritis, insulins and analogues (A10A), blood glucose lowering drugs excluding insulins (A10B), plain lipid modifying agents (C10A), thyroid drugs (H03A) and muscle relaxants (M03C). ATC codes were obtained from the ATC/DDD system designed by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drugs Statistics Methodology,41 a system that aims to monitor drug use. Summary statistics are presented in Table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Summary statistics

    Antidepressant prescriptions were selected as an indicator of psychological distress. The other drugs were chosen because they reflect conditions that are not expected to fluctuate immediately depending on mental conditions. Although all are useful comparison groups, and their pre- and post-referendum descriptive trends provide interesting patterns, only antigout and iron preparations met the formal common trend assumption, so only these entered the econometric model (see sub-sections on trends and the common trend assumption in the Results section).

    Methods

    We used a difference-in-differences (DID) econometric approach, a quasi-experimental technique that compares outcomes in the ‘treatment group’ before and after exposure with pre- and post-treatment outcomes in a predefined control group. This is preferred to an approach that examines trends in the treatment group only. By using a control group, we can control for secular trends in prescription medication that may not be the direct result of the Brexit vote. Our estimates thus examine whether the prescribing volume of antidepressants changed in the treatment period relative to the control group. There are three main (explanatory) dummy variables in a DID model. One dummy represents the treatment group—that is, takes the value of 1 for the group that is exposed to the treatment (or intervention), and 0 otherwise. A second dummy represents the treatment period—that is, takes the value of 1 in the post-treatment period, and 0 otherwise. The main variable of interest is the interaction of the two. A positive and statistically significant coefficient of the interaction term would suggest that the intervention has led to a change in relative trends between the two groups. The treatment and control groups do not need to demonstrate the same levels before the intervention, but they should have common trends.

    Using linear regression, we employed a model at the voting area level using robust standard errors. The dependent variable is the natural logarithm of the number of DDDs per capita of a drug class prescribed in area i in period t. We included a dummy variable for antidepressant drugs, which constitutes the treatment group, taking the value of 1 for antidepressants, and 0 for the control group (antigout and iron preparations). A dummy for months from the referendum onwards (July 2016 onwards) was included to indicate the treatment period. The interaction term between these two dummies is the DID term, which shows what happens in the treatment group (antidepressants) after the treatment (the EU referendum) compared with the control group (other drug classes). We also included monthly time dummies (a dummy for each month in each year) as well as year dummies and region dummies (there are nine broader regions in England). We controlled for the average age of each voting area (because depression and voting may change by age), in quadratic form, because of the non-linear age effects.

    For months included in the sample, we followed two approaches: the first limits the sample to July only each year, in order to compare the first month after Brexit with the same calendar month in previous years. This would help isolate the effect on the first month after the referendum. The second approach takes advantage of all months in a year. We also examined heterogeneous effects across areas of England that were predominantly pro-Brexit (>60% pro-leave) and areas that were predominantly pro-remain (>60% pro-remain).

    In sensitivity analyses, we controlled for voting area dummies (there are 326 voting areas in England) instead of regions, and quarterly time dummies, and we also performed a stepwise inclusion/exclusion of controls. In addition, instead of aggregating at the district level, we also performed the analysis at the individual practice level. The latter approach had some limitations, as we could not calculate dosages per capita, or control for age, as practices opened and closed during the study period.

    Graphically, the common trend between antidepressants (treatment group) and antigout and iron preparations (control groups) is clear in Figures 1 and 2 and confirmed empirically (see Results section). The other classes were kept in the descriptive approach for information only.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Trends before and after the referendum. Average number of defined daily doses (DDDs) per capita, month of July, years 2011–2015, all voting areas in England, based on data from NHS Digital.38

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Average number of defined daily doses (DDDs) per capita, month of July, years 2011–2015, all voting areas in England, based on data from NHS Digital.38

    Results

    Trends

    Figure 2 presents the number of DDDs prescribed per capita in voting areas in July every year for each drug class. Of the classes presented in the graph, only antigout and iron preparations met the common trend assumption, so only these were included in the econometric approach (see subsection on the common trend analysis, in the results Section). However, apart from antidepressants (the treatment group) and antigout and iron preparations (the control group), we also indicatively included the other therapeutic classes described in the data and methods Section. Before the referendum, antidepressants, antigout, iron, lipid, glucose and insulins all demonstrated an increase in July every year compared with previous years. Antidepressant DDDs prescribed per capita increased after the referendum, although at a slower pace. At the same time, antigout, iron, lipid, glucose and insulins decreased right after the referendum, following a period of growth. It is interesting to see that per capita antidepressant prescribing continued to rise after the referendum, while other drug classes started decreasing after a number of years of continuous growth. Muscle relaxants were generally decreasing over most of the study period, a decrease that continued after the referendum. Antidepressant monthly trends are presented in Figure A2 in the online supplementary appendix.

    A difference-in-differences econometric approach

    Results of the DID approach using robust standard errors are presented in Table 2. Column 1 presents the results for July each year only. The DID interaction term is positive and significant (p<0.01), suggesting that after the referendum, the volume of antidepressants prescribed increased by 13.4% relative to trends in other drug classes (DID coeff: 0.134; 95% CI 0.093 to 0.174).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Difference-in-differences regression results. Antidepressants (treatment class) and antigout and iron preparations (control classes)

    Results were almost identical when all months of the year were included in the analysis (column 2). The coefficient of the DID term was again positive and statistically significant, indicating that compared with the control group, relative antidepressant prescribing increased by 12.4%. (p<0.01; DID coeff: 0.124; 95% CI 0.108 to 0.139).

    We also introduced an approach that compared areas that voted predominantly in favour of leaving (>60%) with those who voted predominantly in favour of remaining (>60%) (Table A1, online supplementary appendix). The interaction of the DID term was statistically insignificant, indicating that the two types of area had comparable relative increases in antidepressant prescribing.

    Sensitivity analyses

    Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, including and excluding control variables, and introducing voting area dummies (Table A2, online supplementary appendix). Results were also confirmed by the model using observations at the practice level, rather than aggregating at the voting area level (Table A3, online supplementary appendix).

    The common trend assumption

    Figure 1 suggests that there was a common trend before the referendum between the control group and the treatment group, at least when considering July every year. However, we also performed a formal test of the common trend assumption using intervention leads, similar to the approach followed by Autor42 (Table A4, online supplementary appendix). Column 1 shows the results when considering July only, and all leads were statistically insignificant, suggesting that the common trend holds empirically. However, when considering all months (column 2), the parallel trends assumption appears to be violated, so we should rely on the model with July only, rather than that including all months.

    Discussion

    This paper studied the effect of the Brexit referendum result on prescribing patters of antidepressants, and benchmarked these against changes in prescriptions of other drugs unlikely to be associated with uncertainty and depression. Consideration of the number of antidepressant dosages prescribed, suggests that there was an increase after the referendum, but at a slower pace than previously. One could therefore initially suggest that the referendum led to a slowdown in the increase of antidepressant prescribing. However, using a DID approach, we found a relative increase in antidepressant prescriptions compared with other drug classes.

    Our findings are open to different interpretations. The relative increase may reflect an increase in psychological distress, triggered by uncertainty relating to the results of the Brexit referendum. Alternatively, one could focus on the decrease in the control groups. This might perhaps be attributed to patient distraction in the aftermath of the referendum, regardless of whether they perceived it as a positive or negative development. Patients might thus have neglected to visit their GP or pharmacy, as distraction has been documented as a non-adherence factor.43 44 Even if there was a general decrease in prescribing due to some other factor, the fact that antidepressants continued to increase might have been due to the referendum result balancing out any general downward pressure on prescribing. Another interpretation could relate to physician behaviour, and although we are not aware of any shift in patients from specialists to GPs, we cannot rule out the possibility of a substitution effect.

    Overall, while our findings point towards a relative increase in antidepressant prescribing as measured by DDDs per capita, results should be interpreted with caution and further research is needed to examine whether there is any short-term relationship between the referendum result and mental health.

    The findings do not seem to differ between pro-remain and pro-leave areas. In ‘remain’ areas, EU nationals were uncertain about their future in the country; people working for multinational or EU firms might be afraid of losing their job or relocating; while others might have been concerned about the prospects of the UK economy outside the EU. By contrast, in areas predominantly supportive of leaving the EU, most people might have felt satisfied with getting what they wanted, and perhaps received a boost in national pride, as the ’leave' win was even branded as marking ‘independence day’.45 Consistently, it has been shown that a boost in national pride can lead to higher levels of happiness46; and success in sports, which trigger national pride, can also lead to higher levels of subjective well-being.47 However, in these ‘leave’ strongholds, in addition to uncertainty, some immigrants might have felt under pressure after the referendum result.48

    It is important to note that while our results indicate an average increase in antidepressants, antidepressant use relates to just part of the population. The increase in antidepressant prescribing does not mean that there is on average a worsening in mood in England. Our study does not capture the effect on mental health, mood or happiness of those who do not take antidepressants. The majority voted in favour of leaving the EU, and we should not ignore the possibility that for pro-Brexit voters, the post-referendum period might have been a positive time. Recent descriptive statistics released by the Office for National Statistics indicate an absolute increase in happiness in England in the months after the referendum.49 These figures were not benchmarked against a control group, but even if happiness indeed increased on average in the population, this does not necessarily contradict our findings that particular population groups might have experienced higher levels of depression owing to uncertainty.

    This study is subject to some limitations. First, the control group is not something that originates from a geographical area that was not subject to the treatment. While we would expect the drug classes that served as control group to generally be unaffected by uncertainty in the short run, these were still prescribed in England before and after the referendum, and we cannot rule out any potential contamination. Furthermore, the post-treatment period is short, as we wish to examine the short-term effects of the referendum result. Nevertheless, this might make the results vulnerable to noisy estimates. It is worth mentioning that we capture only prescriptions raised by GPs, which means that we cannot observe any fluctuations in prescribing by specialists or in hospitals. In addition, we could not control for some individual characteristics, such as ethnicity, etc. It is also important to note that we used DDDs to measure prescribing. Alternative approaches, such as number of prescriptions or number of boxes, might not necessarily lead to the same results. In this case we chose to follow the DDD approach because it captured any possible change in the number of patients taking medicines, and also any change in dosage. It would have also been worth studying relative trends in prescribing of anxiolytic drugs compared with control groups. However, prescribing of this class has been decreasing over the past few years, so trends before the referendum were completely different from those in the control groups. It is possible that antidepressants might, in some cases and to some extent, account for decreased anxiolytic use. Alternatively, the increase in antidepressant prescribing may be a response to symptoms relating to mood after the referendum, as more serious symptoms may be treated with antidepressants instead of other medication.

    The existing literature covers the link between uncertainty and health,27–29 but previous studies often focus on long-term effects that are difficult to attribute to certain changes that occurred over time. Our study focused on an event that was unexpected, leading to an immediate shock. From a more general perspective, this paper shows that shocks nationally can affect health and that uncertainty about, and expectations of, future effects can have an impact on health in the short term.

    The findings of this study have several important implications for policy. First, policies supporting mental health should be intensified in periods of uncertainty. Second, our results suggest that the Brexit vote might have had consequences beyond changes in trade, immigration or the economy, influencing psychological well-being and leading to increased distress in the population. Most discussion on the Brexit vote focuses on political or economic concerns, and discussion of the impact on individual health and well-being has been limited; our results contribute to filling this gap. Finally, our study suggests that major political and economic shocks may have unanticipated consequences on population health, even before they directly affect employment, business or migration patterns.30 This suggests that the anticipation of change may in itself be a risk factor for the use of antidepressants. Additional research is required to further investigate whether there are any direct or indirect effects on health and health-related behaviour and disentangle any potential impact of distraction and uncertainty.

    What is already known on this subject

    • National events, such as elections and financial crises, can affect mental health.

    What this study adds

    • Relative antidepressant prescribing increased in England after the Brexit referendum in June 2016, compared with other drug classes.

    • This could be attributed to increased uncertainty for some parts of the population, but it does not rule out a possible improvement in mood for others.

    • There are alternative possible explanations, and we cannot be sure that this relative increase in antidepressants is due to the referendum result.

    • Programmes for the promotion of mental health may need to be intensified during periods of economic uncertainty or political upheaval.

    Acknowledgments

    We are grateful to Michael Holmes, Deputy Editor of the Journal, and four anonymous referees for their useful comments and constructive criticism that have helped improve the paper. We would also like to thank Mark Ashworth for valuable advice and Xiangpu Gong for extracting and merging the data. All outstanding errors are our own.

    References

    1. ↵
      Economic policy uncertainty. 2017. Available at: http://www.policyuncertainty.com/europe_monthly.html (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    2. ↵
      BBC. Bank of England believes Brexit could cost 75,000 finance jobs. 2017. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604 (Accessed 31 Oct 2017).
    3. ↵
      BBC. Brexit vote may spark recession, Mark Carney warns. 2017;12. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36273448 (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    4. ↵
      The Guardian. Bank of England warns Brexit vote will damage living standards. 2017;11. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/11/bank-of-england-living-standards-interest-rates-inflation (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    5. ↵
      BBC. Bank of England warns of consumer spending squeeze. 2017;11. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39880844 (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    6. ↵
      BBC. ‘Carney Warns Brexit uncertainty is building’. 2017;3. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40811712 (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    7. ↵
      The Guardian 2017. “England Lost: Mick Jagger releases Brexit-inspired solo songs”. 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jul/28/england-lost-mick-jagger-releases-brexit-songs-gotta-get-a-grip.
    8. ↵
      2. Silver RC ,
      3. Holman EA ,
      4. McIntosh DN , et al
      . Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11. JAMA 2002;288:1235–44.doi:10.1001/jama.288.10.1235
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      2. Modrek S ,
      3. Hamad R ,
      4. Cullen MR
      . Psychological well-being during the great recession: changes in mental health care utilization in an occupational cohort. Am J Public Health 2015;105:304–10.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302219
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Jofre-Bonet M ,
      3. Serra-Sastre V ,
      4. Vandoros S
      . The impact of the Great Recession on health-related risk factors, behaviour and outcomes in England. Soc Sci Med 2018;197:213–25.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.010
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      2. Riumallo-Herl C ,
      3. Basu S ,
      4. Stuckler D , et al
      . Job loss, wealth and depression during the great recession in the USA and Europe. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1508–17.doi:10.1093/ije/dyu048
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Barr B ,
      3. Taylor-Robinson D ,
      4. Scott-Samuel A , et al
      . Suicides associated with the 2008-10 economic recession in England: time trend analysis. BMJ 2012;345:e5142.doi:10.1136/bmj.e5142
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      2. Yoon JH ,
      3. Junger W ,
      4. Kim BW , et al
      . Investigating the time lag effect between economic recession and suicide rates in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry workers in Korea. Saf Health Work 2012;3:294–7.doi:10.5491/SHAW.2012.3.4.294
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Reeves A ,
      3. Stuckler D ,
      4. McKee M , et al
      . Increase in state suicide rates in the USA during economic recession. Lancet 2012;380:1813–4.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61910-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      2. Nandi A ,
      3. Prescott MR ,
      4. Cerdá M , et al
      . Economic conditions and suicide rates in New York City. Am J Epidemiol 2012;175:527–35.doi:10.1093/aje/kwr355
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      2. Chen VC ,
      3. Chou JY ,
      4. Lai TJ , et al
      . Suicide and unemployment rate in Taiwan, a population-based study, 1978-2006. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2010;45:447–52.doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0083-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Tapia Granados JA
      . Increasing mortality during the expansions of the US economy, 1900-1996. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:1194–202.doi:10.1093/ije/dyi141
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      Unemployment as a social norm: psychological evidence from panel data. J Labor Econ 2003;21:323–51.doi:10.1086/345560
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      2. Gathergood J
      . An instrumental variable approach to unemployment, psychological health and social norm effects. Health Econ 2013;22:643–54.doi:10.1002/hec.2831
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      2. Murphy GC ,
      3. Athanasou JA
      . The effect of unemployment on mental health. J Occup Organ Psychol 1999;72:83–99.doi:10.1348/096317999166518
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      2. Iversen L ,
      3. Klausen H
      . Alcohol consumption among laid-off workers before and after closure of a Danish ship-yard: a 2-year follow-up study. Soc Sci Med 1986;22:107–9.doi:10.1016/0277-9536(86)90314-X
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      2. Jahoda M
      . Work, employment, and unemployment: values, theories, and approaches in social research. Am Psychol 1981;36:184–91.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.184
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      2. Joelson L ,
      3. Wahlquist L
      . The psychological meaning of job insecurity and job loss: results of a longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med 1987;25:179–82.doi:10.1016/0277-9536(87)90386-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Siegel M ,
      3. Bradley EH ,
      4. Gallo WT , et al
      . Impact of husbands' involuntary job loss on wives' mental health, among older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:S30–S37.doi:10.1093/geronb/58.1.S30
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      2. Bartley M
      . Unemployment and ill health: understanding the relationship. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;48:333–7.doi:10.1136/jech.48.4.333
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      2. Ferrie JE ,
      3. Shipley MJ ,
      4. Stansfeld SA , et al
      . Effects of chronic job insecurity and change in job security on self reported health, minor psychiatric morbidity, physiological measures, and health related behaviours in British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:450–4.doi:10.1136/jech.56.6.450
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      2. Hamad R ,
      3. Modrek S ,
      4. Cullen MR
      . The effects of job insecurity on health care utilization: findings from a panel of U.S. workers. Health Serv Res 2016;51:1052–73.doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12393
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      2. Burgard SA ,
      3. Brand JE ,
      4. House JS
      . Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United States. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:777–85.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.06.029
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      2. Ferrie JE ,
      3. Shipley MJ ,
      4. Marmot MG , et al
      . Health effects of anticipation of job change and non-employment: longitudinal data from the Whitehall II study. BMJ 1995;311:1264–9.doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7015.1264
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      2. Vandoros S ,
      3. Avendano M ,
      4. Kawachi I
      . The short-term impact of economic uncertainty on motor vehicle collisions. Prev Med 2018;111:87–93.doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.02.005
      OpenUrl
    31. ↵
      2. Vandoros S ,
      3. Kavetsos G ,
      4. Dolan P
      . Greasy roads: the impact of bad financial news on road traffic accidents. Risk Anal 2014;34:556–66.doi:10.1111/risa.12123
      OpenUrl
    32. ↵
      2. Blasco-Fontecilla H ,
      3. Perez-Rodriguez MM ,
      4. Garcia-Nieto R , et al
      . Worldwide impact of economic cycles on suicide trends over 3 decades: differences according to level of development. A mixed effect model study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000785.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000785
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      2. Neumayer E
      . Recessions lower (some) mortality rates: evidence from Germany. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1037–47.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      2. Saurina C ,
      3. Bragulat B ,
      4. Saez M , et al
      . A conditional model for estimating the increase in suicides associated with the 2008-2010 economic recession in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:779–87.doi:10.1136/jech-2013-202645
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      2. Davalos ME ,
      3. French MT
      . This recession is wearing me out! Health-related quality of life and economic downturns. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2011;14:61–72.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      2. Gili M ,
      3. Roca M ,
      4. Basu S , et al
      . The mental health risks of economic crisis in Spain: evidence from primary care centres, 2006 and 2010. Eur J Public Health 2013;23.doi:10.1093/eurpub/cks035
    37. ↵
      EU Referendum. Nigel Farage says ‘it looks like Remain will edge it’ as polls close. The Independent . 2016;23. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-nigel-farage-remain-edge-it-brexit-ukip-a7098526.html (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    38. ↵
      NHS Digital. Practice level prescribing in England. 2018. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/areas-of-interest/prescribing/practice-level-prescribing-in-england-a-summary (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    39. ↵
      World Health Organisation. WHO ATC/DDD Index. 2017. Available at: https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/ (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    40. ↵
    41. ↵
      WHO collaborating centre for drugs statistics methodology (2018) atc/ddd system. Available at: https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/?code=N06A&showdescription=yes (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    42. ↵
      2. Autor DH
      . Outsourcing at will: the contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. J Labor Econ 2003;21:1–42.doi:10.1086/344122
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      2. Mitchell AJ ,
      3. Selmes T
      . Why don’t patients take their medicine? Reasons and solutions in psychiatry. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 2007;13:336–46.doi:10.1192/apt.bp.106.003194
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. ↵
      2. Hanghøj S ,
      3. Boisen KA
      . Self-reported barriers to medication adherence among chronically ill adolescents: a systematic review. J Adolesc Health 2014;54:121–38.doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.08.009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      BBC. Nigel Farage says Leave win marks UK ‘independence day’. 2016;24. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36613238 (Accessed 29 Ocotber 2018).
    46. ↵
      2. Møller V ,
      3. Dickow H ,
      4. Harris M
      . South africa’s rainbow people’’, national pride and happiness. Soc Indic Res 1999;47:245–80.doi:10.1023/A:1006945108139
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    47. ↵
      2. Hallmann K ,
      3. Breuer C ,
      4. Kühnreich B
      . Happiness, pride and elite sporting success: what population segments gain most from national athletic achievements? Sport Management Review 2013;16:226–35.doi:10.1016/j.smr.2012.07.001
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    48. ↵
      BBC News website. BBC 2017b. ‘Record hate crimes’ after EU referendum. 2017;15. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087 (Accessed 29 October 2018).
    49. ↵
      Office for National Statistics. Personal wellbeing in the UK. 2016. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringnationalwellbeing/july2016tojune2017 (Accessed 29 October 2018).

    Supplementary materials

    • Press release

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors meet the ICMJE authorship criteria. All authors contributed to the study concept and design, results interpretation, drafting of manuscript and critical review. Literature search: SV and MA. Data analysis: SV.

    • Funding MA is supported by grant 667661 (MINDMAP) from the European Commission Horizon 2020 Programme. The funding source had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

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