Interactive and Independent Associations between the Socioeconomic and Objective Built Environment on the Neighbourhood Level and Individual Health: A Systematic Review of Multilevel Studies

Abstract

BackgroundThe research question how contextual factors of neighbourhood environments influence individual health has gained increasing attention in public health research. Both socioeconomic neighbourhood characteristics and factors of the built environment play an important role for health and health-related behaviours. However, their reciprocal relationships have not been systematically reviewed so far. This systematic review aims to identify studies applying a multilevel modelling approach which consider both neighbourhood socioeconomic position (SEP) and factors of the objective built environment simultaneously in order to disentangle their independent and interactive effects on individual health.MethodsThe three databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched with terms for title and abstract screening. Grey literature was not included. Observational studies from USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Western European countries were considered which analysed simultaneously factors of neighbourhood SEP and the objective built environment with a multilevel modelling approach. Adjustment for individual SEP was a further inclusion criterion.ResultsThirty-three studies were included in qualitative synthesis. Twenty-two studies showed an independent association between characteristics of neighbourhood SEP or the built environment and individual health outcomes or health-related behaviours. Twenty-one studies found cross-level or within-level interactions either between neighbourhood SEP and the built environment, or between neighbourhood SEP or the built environment and individual characteristics, such as sex, individual SEP or ethnicity. Due to the large variation of study design and heterogeneous reporting of results the identification of consistent findings was problematic and made quantitative analysis not possible.ConclusionsThere is a need for studies considering multiple neighbourhood dimensions and applying multilevel modelling in order to clarify their causal relationship towards individual health. Especially, more studies using comparable characteristics of neighbourhood SEP and the objective built environment and analysing interactive effects are necessary to disentangle health impacts and identify vulnerable neighbourhoods and population groups.

The association of unemployment from age 21 to 33 with substance use disorder symptoms at age 39: The role of childhood neighborhood characteristics

“…Importantly, relevant literature has underscored the importance of considering multiple dimensions of neighborhood context (Schüle and Bolte, 2015)—including economic disadvantage, safety, violence, and social norms—on substance use (Jackson et al, 2014). Emerging literature has provided a basis for conceptualizing these multiple dimensions of neighborhood context as general versus outcome-specific risk factors (Capaldi et al, 2009; Duncan et al, 2006; Furr-Holden et al, 2015; Lee et al, 2012; Moffitt, 1993).…”

Built and socioeconomic neighbourhood environments and overweight in preschool aged children. A multilevel study to disentangle individual and contextual relationships

“…Moreover, a simultaneous consideration of neighbourhood SEP and built environmental factors in order to disentangle their independent effects is still lacking for this age group (Schüle and Bolte, 2015). Studies differed also widely concerning their adjustment variables which were considered in multivariate analysis.…”

Population Well-Being Measures Help Explain Geographic Disparities In Life Expectancy At The County Level

“…These components include the prevalence of healthy behaviors, neighborhood safety, access to healthy food, and a place to exercise. 4,6,20,35–38 However, to our knowledge, this is the first study to establish a relation between a summary measure of population well-being and life expectancy in a national sample of communities. We also found that all six components of this summary measure—physical health, emotional health, life evaluation, healthy behaviors, basic access, and work environment—were significantly associated with life expectancy.…”