Dataset Information

Understanding the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on youth psychopathology.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 1942, Shaw and McKay reported that disadvantaged neighborhoods predict youth psychopathology (Shaw & McKay, 1942). In the decades since, dozens of papers have confirmed and extended these early results, convincingly demonstrating that disadvantaged neighborhood contexts predict elevated rates of both internalizing and externalizing disorders across childhood and adolescence. It is unclear, however, how neighborhood disadvantage increases psychopathology.

Methods

Our study sought to fill this gap in the literature by examining the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a composite measure of Census tract disadvantage, as an etiologic moderator of several common forms of psychopathology in two samples of school-aged twins from the Michigan State University Twin Registry (N = 4815 and 1030 twin pairs, respectively), the latter of which was enriched for neighborhood disadvantage.

Results

Across both samples, genetic influences on attention-deficit hyperactivity problems were accentuated in the presence of marked disadvantage, while nonshared environmental contributions to callous-unemotional traits increased with increasing disadvantage. However, neighborhood disadvantage had little moderating effect on the etiology of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms.

Conclusions

Such findings suggest that, although neighborhood disadvantage does appear to serve as a general etiologic moderator of many (but not all) forms of psychopathology, this etiologic moderation is phenotype-specific.

SUBMITTER: Carroll SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9378764 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on youth psychopathology.

Carroll Sarah L SL Klump Kelly L KL Burt S Alexandra SA

Psychological medicine 20220216 7

<h4>Background</h4>In 1942, Shaw and McKay reported that disadvantaged neighborhoods predict youth psychopathology (Shaw & McKay, ). In the decades since, dozens of papers have confirmed and extended these early results, convincingly demonstrating that disadvantaged neighborhood contexts predict elevated rates of both internalizing and externalizing disorders across childhood and adolescence. It is unclear, however, <i>how</i> neighborhood disadvantage increases psychopathology.<h4>Methods</h4>O ...[more]

PMID: 35168691

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNeighborhood disadvantage is an important social determinant of health in childhood and adolescence. Less is known about the association of neighborhood disadvantage with youth neurocognition and brain structure, and particularly whether associations are similar across metropolitan areas and are attributed to local differences in disadvantage.ObjectiveTo test whether neighborhood disadvantage is associated with youth neurocognitive performance and with global and regional measures of brain structure after adjusting for family socioeconomic status and perceptions of neighborhood characteristics, and to assess whether these associations (1) are pervasive or limited, (2) vary across metropolitan areas, and (3) are attributed to local variation in disadvantage within metropolitan areas.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed baseline data from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a cohort study conducted at 21 sites across the US. Participants were children aged 9.00 to 10.99 years at enrollment. They and their parent or caregiver completed a baseline visit between October 1, 2016, and October 31, 2018.ExposuresNeighborhood disadvantage factor based on US census tract characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresNeurocognition was measured with the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery, and T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess whole-brain and regional measures of structure. Linear mixed-effects models examined the association between neighborhood disadvantage and outcomes after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.ResultsOf the 11 875 children in the ABCD Study cohort, 8598 children (72.4%) were included in this analysis. The study sample had a mean (SD) age of 118.8 (7.4) months and included 4526 boys (52.6%). Every 1-unit increase in the neighborhood disadvantage factor was associated with lower performance on 6 of 7 subtests, such as Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (unstandardized Β = -0.5; 95% CI, -0.7 to -0.2; false discovery rate (FDR)-corrected P = .001) and List Sorting Working Memory (unstandardized Β = -0.7; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.3; FDR-corrected P < .001), as well as on all composite measures of neurocognition, such as the Total Cognition Composite (unstandardized Β = -0.7; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.5; FDR-corrected P < .001). Each 1-unit increase in neighborhood disadvantage was associated with lower whole-brain cortical surface area (unstandardized Β = -692.6 mm2; 95% CI, -1154.9 to -230.4 mm2; FDR-corrected P = .007) and subcortical volume (unstandardized Β = -113.9 mm3; 95% CI, -198.5 to -29.4 mm3; FDR-corrected P = .03) as well as with regional surface area differences, primarily in the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. Associations largely remained after adjusting for perceptions of neighborhood safety and were both consistent across metropolitan areas and primarily explained by local variation in each area.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, in the US, local variation in neighborhood disadvantage was associated with lower neurocognitive performance and smaller cortical surface area and subcortical volume in young people. The findings demonstrate that neighborhood disadvantage is an environmental risk factor for neurodevelopmental and population health and enhancing the neighborhood context is a promising approach to improving the health and development of children and adolescents.

Project description:ImportanceNeighborhood-level disadvantage is an important factor in the creation and persistence of underresourced neighborhoods with an undue burden of disparate breast cancer-specific survival outcomes. Although studies have evaluated neighborhood-level disadvantage and breast cancer-specific survival after accounting for individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) in large national cancer databases, these studies are limited by age, socioeconomic, and racial and ethnic diversity.ObjectiveTo investigate neighborhood SES (using a validated comprehensive composite measure) and breast cancer-specific survival in a majority-minority population.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective multi-institutional cohort study included patients with stage I to IV breast cancer treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and sister safety-net hospital from January 10, 2007, to September 9, 2016. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 60.3 (41.4) months. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to March 2023.ExposuresNeighborhood SES was measured using the Area Deprivation Index (tertiles), a validated comprehensive composite measure of neighborhood SES.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was breast cancer-specific survival. Random effects frailty models for breast cancer-specific survival were performed controlling for individual-level sociodemographic, comorbidity, breast cancer risk factor, access to care, tumor, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment characteristics. The Area Deprivation Index was calculated for each patient at the census block group level and categorized into tertiles (T1-T3).ResultsA total of 5027 women with breast cancer were included: 55.8% were Hispanic, 17.5% were non-Hispanic Black, and 27.0% were non-Hispanic White. Mean (SD) age was 55.5 (11.7) years. Women living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (T3) had shorter breast cancer-specific survival compared with those living in the most advantaged neighborhoods (T1) after controlling for individual-level sociodemographic, comorbidity, breast cancer risk factor, access to care, tumor, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment characteristics (T3 vs T1: hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P < .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, a shorter breast cancer-specific survival in women from disadvantaged neighborhoods compared with advantaged neighborhoods was identified, even after controlling for individual-level sociodemographic, comorbidity, breast cancer risk factor, access to care, tumor, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment characteristics. The findings suggest potential unaccounted mechanisms, including unmeasured social determinants of health and access to care measures. This study also lays the foundation for future research to evaluate whether social adversity from living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with more aggressive tumor biologic factors, and ultimately shorter breast cancer-specific survival, through social genomic and/or epigenomic alterations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether exposure to community or neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage as measured by the ADI (Area Deprivation Index) is associated with risk of abnormal birth weight among nulliparous individuals with singleton gestations.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis from the prospective cohort NuMoM2b study (Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-To-Be). Participant addresses at cohort enrollment between 6 and 13 weeks of gestation were geocoded at the Census tract level and linked to the 2015 ADI. The ADI, which incorporates the domains of income, education, employment, and housing quality into a composite national ranking of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, was categorized by quartiles (quartile 1, least disadvantaged, reference; quartile 4, most disadvantaged). Outcomes were large for gestational age (LGA; birth weight at or above the 90th percentile) and small for gestational age (SGA; birth weight below the 10th percentile) compared with appropriate for gestational age (AGA; birth weight 10th-90th percentile) as determined with the 2017 U.S. natality reference data, standardized for fetal sex. Multinomial logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounding variables.ResultsOf 8,983 assessed deliveries in the analytic population, 12.7% (n=1,143) were SGA, 8.2% (n=738) were LGA, and 79.1% (n=7,102) were AGA. Pregnant individuals living in the highest ADI quartile (quartile 4, 17.8%) had an increased odds of delivering an SGA neonate compared with those in the lowest referent quartile (quartile 1, 12.4%) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.55). Pregnant individuals living in higher ADI quartiles (quartile 2, 10.3%; quartile 3, 10.7%; quartile 4, 9.2%) had an increased odds of delivering an LGA neonate compared with those in the lowest referent quartile (quartile 1, 8.2%) (aOR: quartile 2, 1.40, 95% CI 1.19-1.61; quartile 3, 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.61; quartile 4, 1.47, 95% CI 1.20-1.74).ConclusionNeonates of nulliparous pregnant individuals living in U.S. neighborhoods with higher area deprivation were more likely to have abnormal birth weights at both extremes.

Dataset Information

Understanding the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on youth psychopathology.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Understanding the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on youth psychopathology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets