The stress process in neighborhood context

Elliott, Marta

doi:10.1016/s1353-8292(00)00010-1

Cited by 203 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Low SES neighborhoods may affect cardiovascular risk because of exposure to hazards in the environment, such as air pollution (Kunzli et al, 2005, Miller et al, 2007, through supporting or impeding healthrelated behaviors , such as smoking (Chuang et al, 2005), diet (Morland et al, 2002), and physical activity (Ewing, 2005), or through social support and stress (Elliott, 2000). The scale of neighborhood measurement may be an important consideration as these processes continue to be studied, and as interventions are developed, targeted and tested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Socioeconomic status (SES) has been posited to be a "fundamental cause" of health disparities (Phelan et al, 2004, Williams andCollins, 2001), such that the association between SES and health is created when higher status individuals or groups mobilize flexible resources, such as money and prestige, to avoid illness and death. There is also evidence from human and animal studies that psychosocial stress in response to relative social status contributes to mortality and disease for low status individuals (Wilkinson,1999, Steptoe andMarmot, 2002) and those living in more deprived areas (Elliott, 2000). Socioeconomic characteristics measured for individuals and areas have commonly included the domains of education, employment, occupational status, income, and material resources (Braveman et al, 2005, Krieger et al, 2002a, Carstairs, 2000.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating options for measurement of neighborhood socioeconomic context: Evidence from a myocardial infarction case–control study

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We hypothesized that neighborhood socioeconomic context would be most stronly associated with risk of myocardial infarction (MI) for smaller "neighborhood" definitions. We used data on 487 nonfatal, incident MI cases and 1,873 controls from a case-control study in Washington State. Census data on income, home ownership, and education were used to estimate socioeconomic context across four neighborhood definitions: one-kilometer buffer, block group, census tract, and ZIP code. No neighborhood definition led to consistently stronger associations with MI. Although we confirmed the association between neighborhood socioeconomic measures and risk of MI, we did not find these associations sensitive to neighborhood definition. Gina Lovasi, PhD, 820 IAB, MC 3355, 420 W 118th St, New York NY 10027, 212-854-3804 (office), 646-761-1362 (mobile), 212-854-8925 (fax), gl2225@columbia.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Socioeconomic disparities in health have received increasing attention by researchers (Adler and Ostrove, 1999) and policy makers (Mackenbach and Bakker, 2003) in recent decades. Socioeconomic status (SES) has been posited to be a "fundamental cause" of health disparities (Phelan et al., 2004, Williams andCollins, 2001), such that the association between SES and health is created when higher status individuals or groups mobilize flexible resources, such as money and prestige, to avoid illness and death. There is also evidence from human and animal studies that psychosocial stress in response to relative social status contributes to mortality and disease for low status individuals (Wilkinson,1999, Steptoe andMarmot, 2002) and those living in more deprived areas (Elliott, 2000). Socioeconomic characteristics measured for individuals and areas have commonly included the domains of education, employment, occupational status, income, and material resources (Braveman et al., 2005, Krieger et al., 2002a, Carstairs, 2000. The questionnaires or other methods used to ascertain such characteristics differ across settings and studies (Krieger et al., 1997), and area-based socioeconomic characteristics have the additional complication of being measured at different scales or levels of aggregation (Pickett and Pearl, 2001). NIH Public AccessIn studies of neighborhood socioeconomic context and health, several scales of measurement are used without consensus as to which is most relevant. The modifiable areal unit problem, like the ecological fallacy, is a concern for such studies because study results may be sensitive to the selected measurement scale (Guagliard...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating options for measurement of neighborhood socioeconomic context: Evidence from a myocardial infarction case–control study

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contemporary anomie/strain theories suggest that other sources of strain in modern living, including confrontation with unpleasant stimuli, may be associated both with deviant behavior and with poor health (5, 19). A substantial body of research has established a relation between stress and social strain and mental and physical health (e.g., 27,72,98), and newer work has posited that features of the urban neighborhood context are associated with social strain and adverse health behaviors (13,40).…”

Section: The Urban Social Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

URBAN HEALTH: Evidence, Challenges, and Directions

Galea

Vlahov

2005

Annu. Rev. Public Health

396

265

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

■ Abstract Urbanization is one of the most important demographic shifts worldwide during the past century and represents a substantial change from how most of the world's population has lived for the past several thousand years. The study of urban health considers how characteristics of the urban environment may affect population health. This paper reviews the empirical research assessing urban living's impact on population health and our rationale for considering the study of urban health as a distinct field of inquiry. The key factors affecting health in cities can be considered within three broad themes: the physical environment, the social environment, and access to health and social services. The methodologic and conceptual challenges facing the study of urban health, arising both from the limitations of the research to date and from the complexities inherent in assessing the relations among complex urban systems, disease causation, and health are discussed.

show abstract

“…1 portrays the conceptual model concerning the relationship between individual characteristics, neighborhood level factors, traffic stress and individual health outcomes. Adapted from the model of the stress process in neighborhood context developed by Elliott (2000), this model shows that individual differences as well as neighborhood factors influence traffic stress and health outcomes. Individual perceptions of traffic stress and objective neighborhood conditions may influence health directly (links a and b, respectively).…”

Section: Conceptual Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do physical neighborhood characteristics matter in predicting traffic stress and health outcomes?

Song

Gee

Fan

et al. 2007

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviou

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether social, and physical environment characteristics related to urban design interact with individual perceptions of traffic stress to influence individual well-being. The Chinese American Psychiatric Epidemiologic Study data, the US census data, and the Geographic Information System (GIS) data are employed. Analyses used hierarchical linear modeling. The results indicate that perceived traffic stress was associated with lower health status and higher depression. More importantly, higher density of major streets and greater vehicular burden in the neighborhood pose potential harm to health by reinforcing the negative impacts of perceived traffic stress. On the other hand, more park land in the neighborhood could alleviate the damage of traffic stress on individual's well-being. The implications of the results for future research are discussed.

show abstract

The stress process in neighborhood context

Cited by 203 publications

References 40 publications

Evaluating options for measurement of neighborhood socioeconomic context: Evidence from a myocardial infarction case–control study

Evaluating options for measurement of neighborhood socioeconomic context: Evidence from a myocardial infarction case–control study

URBAN HEALTH: Evidence, Challenges, and Directions

Do physical neighborhood characteristics matter in predicting traffic stress and health outcomes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About