Characteristics of an individual alone cannot exhaustively explain all the causes of poor health, and neighborhood of residence have been suggested to be one of the factors that contribute to health. However, knowledge about aspects of the neighborhood that are most important to health is limited. The main objective of this study was to explore associations between certain features of neighborhood environment and self-rated health and depressive symptoms in Maastricht (The Netherlands). A large amount of routinely collected neighborhood data were aggregated by means of factor analysis to 18 characteristics of neighborhood social and physical environment. Associations between these characteristics and self-rated health and presence of depressive symptoms were further explored in multilevel logistic regression models adjusted for individual demographic and socio-economic factors. The study sample consisted of 9,879 residents (mean age 55 years, 48 % male). Residents of unsafe communities were less likely to report good health (OR 0.88 95 % CI 0.80-0.97) and depressive symptoms (OR 0.81 95 % CI 0.69-0.97), and less cohesive environment was related to worse self-rated health (OR 0.81 95 % CI 0.72-0.92). Residents of neighborhoods with more car traffic nuisance and more disturbance from railway noise reported worse mental health (OR 0.79 95 % CI 0.68-0.92 and 0.85 95 % CI 0.73-0.99, respectively). We did not observe any association between health and quality of parking and shopping facilities, facilities for public or private transport, neighborhood aesthetics, green space, industrial nuisance, sewerage, neighbor nuisance or satisfaction with police performance. Our findings can be used to support development of integrated health policies targeting broader determinants of health. Improving safety, social cohesion and decreasing traffic nuisance in disadvantaged neighborhoods might be a promising way to improve the health of residents and reduce health inequalities.

BackgroundPragmatic randomised controlled trials are often used in primary care to evaluate the effect of a treatment strategy. In these trials it is difficult to achieve both high internal validity and high generalisability. This article will discuss several methodological challenges in designing and conducting a pragmatic primary care based randomised controlled trial, based on our experiences in the DIAMOND-study and will discuss the rationale behind the choices we made. From the successes as well as the problems we experienced the quality of future pragmatic trials may benefit.DiscussionThe first challenge concerned choosing the clinically most relevant interventions to compare and enable blinded comparison, since two interventions had very different appearances. By adding treatment steps to one treatment arm and adding placebo to both treatment arms both internal and external validity were optimized. Nevertheless, although blinding is essential for a high internal validity, it should be warily considered in a pragmatic trial because it decreases external validity. Choosing and recruiting a representative selection of participants was the second challenge. We succeeded in retrieving a representative relatively large patient sample by carefully choosing (few) inclusion and exclusion criteria, by random selection, by paying much attention to participant recruitment and taking the participant's reasons to participate into account. Good and regular contact with the GPs and patients was to our opinion essential. The third challenge was to choose the primary outcome, which needed to reflect effectiveness of the treatment in every day practice. We also designed our protocol to follow every day practice as much as possible, although standardized treatment is usually preferred in trials. The aim of this was our fourth challenge: to limit the number of protocol deviations and increase external validity.SummaryIt is challenging to design and conduct a pragmatic trial. Thanks to thorough preparation, we were able to collect highly valid data. To our opinion, a critical deliberation of where on the pragmatic – explanatory spectrum you want your trial to be on forehand, in combination with consulting publications especially on patient recruitment procedures, has been helpful in conducting a successful trial.

No abstract