Previous studies (various designs) present contradicting insights on the potential causal effects of diet/physical activity on depression/anxiety (and vice versa). To clarify this, we employed a triangulation framework including three methods with unique strengths/limitations/potential biases to examine possible bidirectional causal effects of diet/physical activity on depression/anxiety.

Study 1: 3-wave longitudinal study (n = 9,276 Dutch University students). Using random intercept cross-lagged panel models to study temporal associations. Study 2: cross-sectional study (n = 341 monozygotic and n = 415 dizygotic Australian adult twin pairs). Using a co-twin control design to separate genetic/environmental confounding. Study 3: Mendelian randomization utilizing data (European ancestry) from genome-wide association studies (n varied between 17,310 and 447,401). Using genetic variants as instrumental variables to study causal inference.

Study 1 did not provide support for bidirectional causal effects between diet/physical activity and symptoms of depression/anxiety. Study 2 did provide support for causal effects between fruit/vegetable intake and symptoms of depression/anxiety, mixed support for causal effects between physical activity and symptoms of depression/anxiety, and no support for causal effects between sweet/savoury snack intake and symptoms of depression/anxiety. Study 3 provides support for a causal effect from increased fruit intake to the increased likelihood of anxiety. No support was found for other pathways. Adjusting the analyses including diet for physical activity (and vice versa) did not change the conclusions in any study.

Triangulating the evidence across the studies did not provide compelling support for causal effects of diet/physical activity on depression/anxiety or vice versa.

Observational studies consistently report associations between tobacco use, cannabis use and mental illness. However, the extent to which this association reflects an increased risk of new-onset mental illness is unclear and may be biased by unmeasured confounding.

A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42021243903). Electronic databases were searched until November 2022. Longitudinal studies in general population samples assessing tobacco and/or cannabis use and reporting the association (e.g. risk ratio [RR]) with incident anxiety, mood, or psychotic disorders were included. Estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analyses. Bias was explored using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, confounder matrix, E-values, and Doi plots.

Seventy-five studies were included. Tobacco use was associated with mood disorders (K = 43; RR: 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30–1.47), but not anxiety disorders (K = 7; RR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.87–1.68) and evidence for psychotic disorders was influenced by treatment of outliers (K = 4, RR: 3.45, 95% CI 2.63–4.53; K = 5, RR: 2.06, 95% CI 0.98–4.29). Cannabis use was associated with psychotic disorders (K = 4; RR: 3.19, 95% CI 2.07–4.90), but not mood (K = 7; RR: 1.31, 95% CI 0.92–1.86) or anxiety disorders (K = 7; RR: 1.10, 95% CI 0.99–1.22). Confounder matrices and E-values suggested potential overestimation of effects. Only 27% of studies were rated as high quality.

Both substances were associated with psychotic disorders and tobacco use was associated with mood disorders. There was no clear evidence of an association between cannabis use and mood or anxiety disorders. Limited high-quality studies underscore the need for future research using robust causal inference approaches (e.g. evidence triangulation).

At the basis of many important research questions is causality – does X causally impact Y? For behavioural and psychiatric traits, answering such questions can be particularly challenging, as they are highly complex and multifactorial. ‘Triangulation’ refers to prospectively choosing, conducting and integrating several methods to investigate a specific causal question. If different methods, with different sources of bias, all indicate a causal effect, the finding is much less likely to be spurious. While triangulation can be a powerful approach, its interpretation differs across (sub)fields and there are no formal guidelines. Here, we aim to provide clarity and guidance around the process of triangulation for behavioural and psychiatric epidemiology, so that results of existing triangulation studies can be better interpreted, and new triangulation studies better designed.

We first introduce the concept of triangulation and how it is applied in epidemiological investigations of behavioural and psychiatric traits. Next, we put forth a systematic step-by-step guide, that can be used to design a triangulation study (accompanied by a worked example). Finally, we provide important general recommendations for future studies.

While the literature contains varying interpretations, triangulation generally refers to an investigation that assesses the robustness of a potential causal finding by explicitly combining different approaches. This may include multiple types of statistical methods, the same method applied in multiple samples, or multiple different measurements of the variable(s) of interest. In behavioural and psychiatric epidemiology, triangulation commonly includes prospective cohort studies, natural experiments and/or genetically informative designs (including the increasingly popular method of Mendelian randomization). The guide that we propose aids the planning and interpreting of triangulation by prompting crucial considerations. Broadly, its steps are as follows: determine your causal question, draw a directed acyclic graph, identify available resources and samples, identify suitable methodological approaches, further specify the causal question for each method, explicate the effects of potential biases and, pre-specify expected results. We illustrated the guide’s use by considering the question: ‘Does maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy cause offspring depression?’.

In the current era of big data, and with increasing (public) availability of large-scale datasets, triangulation will become increasingly relevant in identifying robust risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes. Our hope is that this review and guide will provide clarity and direction, as well as stimulate more researchers to apply triangulation to causal questions around behavioural and psychiatric traits.

Observational studies have found associations between smoking and both poorer cognitive ability and lower educational attainment; however, evaluating causality is challenging. We used two complementary methods to explore this.

We conducted observational analyses of up to 12 004 participants in a cohort study (Study One) and Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses using summary and cohort data (Study Two). Outcome measures were cognitive ability at age 15 and educational attainment at age 16 (Study One), and educational attainment and fluid intelligence (Study Two).

Study One: heaviness of smoking at age 15 was associated with lower cognitive ability at age 15 and lower educational attainment at age 16. Adjustment for potential confounders partially attenuated findings (e.g. fully adjusted cognitive ability β −0.736, 95% CI −1.238 to −0.233, p = 0.004; fully adjusted educational attainment β −1.254, 95% CI −1.597 to −0.911, p < 0.001). Study Two: MR indicated that both smoking initiation and lifetime smoking predict lower educational attainment (e.g. smoking initiation to educational attainment inverse-variance weighted MR β −0.197, 95% CI −0.223 to −0.171, p = 1.78 × 10−49). Educational attainment results were robust to sensitivity analyses, while analyses of general cognitive ability were less so.

We find some evidence of a causal effect of smoking on lower educational attainment, but not cognitive ability. Triangulation of evidence across observational and MR methods is a strength, but the genetic variants associated with smoking initiation may be pleiotropic, suggesting caution in interpreting these results. The nature of this pleiotropy warrants further study.

There is a wealth of literature on the observed association between childhood trauma and psychotic illness. However, the relationship between childhood trauma and psychosis is complex and could be explained, in part, by gene–environment correlation.

The association between schizophrenia polygenic scores (PGS) and experiencing childhood trauma was investigated using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Schizophrenia PGS were derived in each cohort for children, mothers, and fathers where genetic data were available. Measures of trauma exposure were derived based on data collected throughout childhood and adolescence (0–17 years; ALSPAC) and at age 8 years (MoBa).

Within ALSPAC, we found a positive association between schizophrenia PGS and exposure to trauma across childhood and adolescence; effect sizes were consistent for both child or maternal PGS. We found evidence of an association between the schizophrenia PGS and the majority of trauma subtypes investigated, with the exception of bullying. These results were comparable with those of MoBa. Within ALSPAC, genetic liability to a range of additional psychiatric traits was also associated with a greater trauma exposure.

Results from two international birth cohorts indicate that genetic liability for a range of psychiatric traits is associated with experiencing childhood trauma. Genome-wide association study of psychiatric phenotypes may also reflect risk factors for these phenotypes. Our findings also suggest that youth at higher genetic risk might require greater resources/support to ensure they grow-up in a healthy environment.

Smoking prevalence is higher amongst individuals with schizophrenia and depression compared with the general population. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can examine whether this association is causal using genetic variants identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS).

We conducted two-sample MR to explore the bi-directional effects of smoking on schizophrenia and depression. For smoking behaviour, we used (1) smoking initiation GWAS from the GSCAN consortium and (2) we conducted our own GWAS of lifetime smoking behaviour (which captures smoking duration, heaviness and cessation) in a sample of 462690 individuals from the UK Biobank. We validated this instrument using positive control outcomes (e.g. lung cancer). For schizophrenia and depression we used GWAS from the PGC consortium.

There was strong evidence to suggest smoking is a risk factor for both schizophrenia (odds ratio (OR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67–3.08, p < 0.001) and depression (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.71–2.32, p < 0.001). Results were consistent across both lifetime smoking and smoking initiation. We found some evidence that genetic liability to depression increases smoking (β = 0.091, 95% CI 0.027–0.155, p = 0.005) but evidence was mixed for schizophrenia (β = 0.022, 95% CI 0.005–0.038, p = 0.009) with very weak evidence for an effect on smoking initiation.

These findings suggest that the association between smoking, schizophrenia and depression is due, at least in part, to a causal effect of smoking, providing further evidence for the detrimental consequences of smoking on mental health.

There is increasing evidence that smoking is a risk factor for severe mental illness, including bipolar disorder. Conversely, patients with bipolar disorder might smoke more (often) as a result of the psychiatric disorder.

We conducted a bidirectional Mendelian randomisation (MR) study to investigate the direction and evidence for a causal nature of the relationship between smoking and bipolar disorder.

We used publicly available summary statistics from genome-wide association studies on bipolar disorder, smoking initiation, smoking heaviness, smoking cessation and lifetime smoking (i.e. a compound measure of heaviness, duration and cessation). We applied analytical methods with different, orthogonal assumptions to triangulate results, including inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger, MR-Egger SIMEX, weighted-median, weighted-mode and Steiger-filtered analyses.

Across different methods of MR, consistent evidence was found for a positive effect of smoking on the odds of bipolar disorder (smoking initiation ORIVW = 1.46, 95% CI 1.28–1.66, P = 1.44 × 10−8, lifetime smoking ORIVW = 1.72, 95% CI 1.29–2.28, P = 1.8 × 10−4). The MR analyses of the effect of liability to bipolar disorder on smoking provided no clear evidence of a strong causal effect (smoking heaviness betaIVW = 0.028, 95% CI 0.003–0.053, P = 2.9 × 10−2).

These findings suggest that smoking initiation and lifetime smoking are likely to be a causal risk factor for developing bipolar disorder. We found some evidence that liability to bipolar disorder increased smoking heaviness. Given that smoking is a modifiable risk factor, these findings further support investment into smoking prevention and treatment in order to reduce mental health problems in future generations.

Despite the well-documented association between smoking and personality traits such as neuroticism and extraversion, little is known about the potential causal nature of these findings. If it were possible to unpick the association between personality and smoking, it may be possible to develop tailored smoking interventions that could lead to both improved uptake and efficacy.

Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified variants robustly associated with both smoking phenotypes and personality traits. Here we use publicly available GWAS summary statistics in addition to individual-level data from UK Biobank to investigate the link between smoking and personality. We first estimate genetic overlap between traits using LD score regression and then use bidirectional Mendelian randomisation methods to unpick the nature of this relationship.

We found clear evidence of a modest genetic correlation between smoking behaviours and both neuroticism and extraversion. We found some evidence that personality traits are causally linked to certain smoking phenotypes: among current smokers each additional neuroticism risk allele was associated with smoking an additional 0.07 cigarettes per day (95% CI 0.02–0.12, p = 0.009), and each additional extraversion effect allele was associated with an elevated odds of smoking initiation (OR 1.015, 95% CI 1.01–1.02, p = 9.6 × 10−7).

We found some evidence for specific causal pathways from personality to smoking phenotypes, and weaker evidence of an association from smoking initiation to personality. These findings could be used to inform future smoking interventions or to tailor existing schemes.