| Literature DB >> 16545132 |
Barbara A Laraia1, Lynne Messer, Jay S Kaufman, Nancy Dole, Margaret Caughy, Patricia O'Campo, David A Savitz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neighborhood characteristics have been associated with poor maternal and child health outcomes, yet conceptualization of potential mechanisms is still needed. Census data have long served as proxies for area level socioeconomic influences. Unique information captured by neighborhood inventories, mostly conducted in northern US and Canadian urban areas, has shown important aspects of the community environment that are not captured by the socioeconomic and demographic aggregated individual statistics of census data. In this paper, we describe a neighborhood data collection effort tailored to a southern urban area.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16545132 PMCID: PMC1444926 DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-5-11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Selected neighborhood attributes, range, mean and standard deviation for total sample and by race
| HOUSING & STREET ITEMS | ||||
| Presence of multiple dwellings | 0–91% | 32.2 (24.8) | 27.7 (22.6) | 41.8 (24.8)* |
| Presence of only single dwellings | 9–100% | 59.2 (24.0) | 60.4 (19.8) | 50.0 (23.4)* |
| Good housing condition | 12–100% | 81.5 (21.6) | 85.3 (15.3) | 73.1 (26.5)* |
| Presence of yards | 57–100% | 92.7 (13.3) | 92.0 (11.7) | 90.2 (11.7) |
| Good condition of yards | 8–100% | 74.4 (22.1) | 77.4 (17.2) | 68.0 (22.9)* |
| Presence of any litter | 0–100% | 48.1 (30.4) | 41.4 (26.5) | 63.0 (27.5)* |
| Presence of graffiti | 0–17% | 1.4 (0.3) | 1.1 (1.9) | 3.1 (4.5)* |
| Presence of sidewalks | 0–100% | 54.4 (26.0) | 61.0 (23.4) | 49.6 (19.9)* |
| Presence of street lamps | 26–100% | 89.0 (16.8) | 80.6 (21.5) | 91.2 (10.6)* |
| SOCIAL INTERACTION | ||||
| People present | 0–70% | 28.6 (16.8) | 27.2 (12.5) | 40.4 (19.1)* |
| Presence of parks | 0–46% | 6.3 (9.9) | 4.3 (4.8) | 6.8 (8.4)* |
| Presence of porches | 9–90% | 44.5 (20.0) | 38.4 (15.0) | 45.9 (20.2)* |
| SYMBOLIC AND PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES | ||||
| Presence of decorations | 11–82% | 57.6 (15.2) | 59.9 (12.3) | 51.2 (12.5)* |
| No Trespassing Sign | 0–83% | 13.0 (15.5) | 11.1 (8.5) | 21.8 (17.4)* |
| Neighborhood Sign | 0–50% | 11.8 (10.0) | 14.1 (8.3) | 15.7 (9.8)* |
| Community Watch Sign | 0–57% | 18.0 (13.8) | 17.5 (11.7) | 21.1 (11.6)* |
| Security Warning Signs | 0–29% | 10.5 (6.7) | 9.6 (5.7) | 13.5 (7.6)* |
| Presence of borders (hedges or fences) | 0–71% | 36.3 (12.8) | 35.0 (12.6) | 37.0 (12.3) |
| COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC SPACES | ||||
| Presence of commercial buildings | 0–94% | 23.6 (20.8) | 19.3 (15.2) | 26.8 (17.3)* |
| Abandoned commercial building | 0–50% | 3.9 (9.4) | 2.2 (8.0) | 6.0 (11.0)* |
| Security bars on commercial buildings | 0–100% | 13.0 (20.7) | 9.2 (15.0) | 17.7 (18.6)* |
| Presence of new home construction | 0–33% | 1.8 (5.2) | 2.9 (7.2) | 1.9 (5.3) |
| Good condition of public spaces | 12–100% | 87.3 (14.0) | 87.5 (11.0) | 83.9 (17.7)* |
* Probability of difference in scores (p = <0.05) using two sided t-test for mean differences compared to non-Hispanic white women
Selected neighborhood attributes mean value at the street segment level for Baltimore, MD and Raleigh, NC
| Baltimore, MD (n = 1135) | Raleigh, NC (n = 2771) | |
| Vacant residences | 31.0 | 4.0 |
| Poor ground condition | 9.8 | 0.6 |
| Moderate/considerable litter | 25.0 | 4.5 |
| Graffiti | 39.0 | 1.4 |
| Poor commercial building condition | 11.0 | 1.8 |
| Vacant commercial buildings | 9.0 | 4.5 |
| Poor condition of public spaces | 33.0 | 1.8 |
| Baltimore, MD (n = 1135) | Raleigh, NC (n = 2771) | |
| Crime watch/security/no trespassing signs visible | 73.7 | 65.6 |
| Resident's reactions to raters | 61.0 | 28.2 |
| One third or more of homes with borders/hedges | 41.0 | 58.5 |
| One third or more of homes with security bars | 25.2 | Not present |
| One third or more of homes with decorations | 61.0 | 67.6 |
| Sign visible denoting neighborhood name | 2.5 | 13.2 |
| Baltimore, MD (n = 1135) | Raleigh, NC (n = 2771) | |
| Presence of people | Not published | 28.6 |
| Children visibly playing | 14.3 | 6.7 |
| One third or more homes with yards | 76.6 | 78.6 |
| One third or more homes with porches | Not published | 45.9 |
| Nonresident visitors | Not published | 18.0 |
| Presence of parks | Not published | 5.4 |
| Parks in good condition | 1.8 | 4.9 |
| Street not a busy thoroughfare | 70.8 | 77.7 |
| Presence of sidewalks | Not published | 44.4 |
Spearman's correlation coefficient among three scales and 16 census variables at the block group level
| POVERTY | |||
| % Income Below Poverty | 0.62* | -0.22* | 0.43* |
| % Public Assistance | 0.47* | 0.22* | 0.14 |
| % Female Head of Household with Dependents | 0.44* | 0.00 | 0.13 |
| EDUCATION | |||
| % No High School Diploma | 0.68* | 0.04 | 0.21* |
| EMPLOYMENT/OCCUPATION | |||
| % Unemployed | 0.43* | -0.10 | 0.09 |
| % Occupation is Management or Professional | -0.62* | -0.10 | -0.12 |
| HOUSING | |||
| Owner Occupied Median Housing Value | -0.56* | -0.02 | -0.06 |
| % ≥ 1 Person per Room (crowding) | 0.33* | -0.09 | 0.10 |
| RACIAL COMPOSITION | |||
| % Black non-Hispanic | 0.63* | 0.11 | 0.14 |
| % White non-Hispanic | -0.58* | -0.06 | 0.12 |
| % Hispanic | 0.17 | -0.12 | 0.05 |
| RESIDENTIAL STABILITY | |||
| % Older than 65 years | -0.26* | 0.45* | 0.01 |
| % Homes Owned | -0.43* | 0.47* | -0.43* |
| % Living in Same Residence since 1995 | -0.16 | 0.58* | -0.20* |
| TRANSPORTATION | |||
| % Using private transportation to get to work | -0.38* | 0.03 | -0.56* |
| % Using public transportation to get to work | 0.43* | 0.05 | 0.36* |
* Significant at ρ < 0.05