Analysis of impacts of neighbourhood risk factors on mental health outcomes frequently adopts a disease mapping approach, with unknown neighbourhood influences summarised by random effects. However, such effects may show confounding with observed predictors, especially when such predictors have a clear spatial pattern. Here, the standard disease mapping model is compared to methods which account and adjust for spatial confounding in an analysis of psychosis prevalence in London neighbourhoods. Established area risk factors such as area deprivation, non-white ethnicity, greenspace access and social fragmentation are considered as influences on psychosis. The results show evidence of spatial confounding in the standard disease mapping model. Impacts expected on substantive grounds and available evidence are either nullified or reversed in direction. It is argued that the potential for spatial confounding to affect inferences about geographic disease patterns and risk factors should be routinely considered in ecological studies of health based on disease mapping.

Disease mapping

Spatial confounding

Relative Risk

Psychosis

Data will be made available on request.

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.