Browsing by Subject "Residence characteristics"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The effect of adverse housing and neighborhood conditions on the development of diabetes mellitus among middle-aged African Americans
    (Oxford University Press, 2007-08-15) Schootman, Mario; Andresen, Elena M.; Wolinsky, Fredric D.; Malmstrom, Theodore K.; Miller, J. Philip; Yan, Yan; Miller, Douglas K.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    The authors examined the associations of observed neighborhood (block face) and housing conditions with the incidence of diabetes by using data from 644 subjects in the African-American Health Study (St. Louis area, Missouri). They also investigated five mediating pathways (health behavior, psychosocial, health status, access to medical care, and sociodemographic characteristics) if significant associations were identified. The external appearance of the block the subjects lived on and housing conditions were rated as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Subjects reported about neighborhood desirability. Self-reported diabetes was obtained at baseline and 3 years later. Of 644 subjects without self-reported diabetes, 10.3% reported having diabetes at the 3-year follow-up. Every housing condition rated as fair-poor was associated with an increased risk of diabetes, with odds ratios ranging from 2.53 (95% confidence interval: 1.47, 4.34 for physical condition inside the building) to 1.78 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 3.07 for cleanliness inside the building) in unadjusted analyses. No association was found between any of the block face conditions or perceived neighborhood conditions and incident diabetes. The odds ratios for the five housing conditions were unaffected when adjusted for the mediating pathways. Poor housing conditions appear to be an independent contributor to the risk of incident diabetes in urban, middle-aged African Americans.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Observer ratings of neighborhoods: comparison of two methods
    (Springer Nature, 2013-10-29) Andresen, Elena M.; Malmstrom, Theodore K.; Schootman, Mario; Wolinsky, Fredric D.; Miller, J. Philip; Miller, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Although neighborhood characteristics have important relationships with health outcomes, direct observation involves imperfect measurement. The African American Health (AAH) study included two observer neighborhood rating systems (5-item Krause and 18-item AAH Neighborhood Assessment Scale [NAS]), initially fielded at two different waves. Good measurement characteristics were previously shown for both, but there was more rater variability than desired. In 2010 both measures were re-fielded together, with enhanced training and field methods implemented to decrease rater variability while maintaining psychometric properties. Methods: AAH included a poor inner city and more heterogeneous suburban areas. Four interviewers rated 483 blocks, with 120 randomly-selected blocks rated by two interviewers. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis of scales and tested the Krause (5-20 points), AAH 18-item NAS (0-28 points), and a previous 7-item and new 5-item versions of the NAS (0-17 points, 0-11 points). Retest reliability for items (kappa) and scales (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]) were calculated overall and among pre-specified subgroups. Linear regression assessed interviewer effects on total scale scores and assessed concurrent validity on lung and lower body functions. Mismeasurement effects on self-rated health were also assessed. Results: Scale scores were better in the suburbs than in the inner city. ICC was poor for the Krause scale (ICC=0.19), but improved if the retests occurred within 10 days (ICC=0.49). The 7- and 5-item NAS scales had better ICCs (0.56 and 0.62, respectively), and were higher (0.71 and 0.73) within 10 days. Rater variability for the Kraus and 5- and 7-item NAS scales was 1-3 points (compared to the supervising rater). Concurrent validity was modest, with residents living in worse neighborhood conditions having worse function. Unadjusted estimates were biased towards the null compared with measurement-error corrected estimates. Conclusions: Enhanced field protocols and rater training did not improve measurement quality. Specifically, retest reliability and interviewer variability remained problematic. Measurement error partially reduced, but did not eliminate concurrent validity, suggesting there are robust associations between neighborhood characteristics and health outcomes. We conclude that the 5-item AAH NAS has sufficient reliability and validity for further use. Additional research on the measurement properties of environmental rating methods is encouraged.