The effects of poor housing conditions on depressive symptoms in persons with disabilities: Do neighborhood resources and residence type matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor housing conditions pose significant risks to the health of persons with disabilities. However, it is not well understood how and for whom the relationship between housing conditions and health is more pronounced. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the association between poor housing conditions and psychological health, and to explore whether residential characteristics, such as residence type and proximity to community resources, mitigate these risks for community-dwelling adults with disabilities. METHODS: Data were obtained from three waves of the Disability and Life Dynamic Panel (n = 5,058), a nationally representative study of individuals with disabilities in Korea. Our sample were limited to those aged 20 or older for the purpose of this study. Individual-level fixed effect analyses were conducted to assess the longitudinal association between poor housing conditions and depressive symptoms, accounting for individual-level heterogeneity. We also tested the moderating effects of the residential characteristics, including proximity to community resources and residence type. RESULTS: Poor housing conditions, characterized by structural unsafety and inadequate ventilation, lighting, and noise protection, were associated with increased depressive symptoms among adults with disabilities. The negative impact of poor housing conditions on depressive symptoms was less pronounced for those living close to community services or in apartment complexes where housing conditions are professionally managed. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that the quality of housing and neighborhood environments affect the psychological health of adults with disabilities. These findings support for the need for place-based interventions aimed at improving the residential environments of community-dwelling adults with disabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".