| Literature DB >> 22138639 |
Marie Lynn Miranda1, Lynne C Messer, Gretchen L Kroeger.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The built environment, a key component of environmental health, may be an important contributor to health disparities, particularly for reproductive health outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22138639 PMCID: PMC3295337 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1103578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Figure 1CAP study area, Durham, North Carolina.
Figure 2Illustration of PAC designation, City of Durham, North Carolina (USA).
Variables for each community index for PAC units: CAP area, City of Durham, North Carolina (USA), 2008.
| Characteristic | Mean ± SD (range) |
|---|---|
| Attribute | |
| Housing damage index (range, –0.48 to 3.42; α = 0.84) | |
| Boarded door | 0.01 ± 0.02 (0–0.13) |
| Holes in walls | 0.01 ± 0.02 (0–0.17) |
| Roof damage | 0.02 ± 0.25 (0–0.26) |
| Chimney damage | 0.001 ± 0.003 (0–0.04) |
| Foundation damage | 0.002 ± 0.004 (0–0.03) |
| Entry damage | 0.02 ± 0.02 (0–0.17) |
| Door damage | 0.01 ± 0.02 (0–0.26) |
| Peeling paint | 0.18 ± 0.12 (0–0.67) |
| >Fire damage | 0.001 ± 0.01 (0–0.17) |
| Condemned | 0.002 ± 0.01 (0–0.05) |
| Boarded windows | 0.15 ± 0.26 (0–1.0) |
| Broken windows | 0.06 ± 0.19 (0–1.0) |
| Property disorder index (range, –1.08 to 5.45; α = 0.83) | |
| Cars on lawn | 0.04 ± 0.04 (0–0.22) |
| No grass | 0.02 ± 0.02 (0–0.16) |
| Standing water | 0.003 ± 0.01 (0–0.17) |
| Litter | 0.23 ± 0.18 (0–1.0) |
| Garbage | 0.07 ± 0.08 (0–1.0) |
| Broken glass | 0.05 ± 0.09 (0–1.0) |
| Discarded furniture | 0.03 ± 0.04 (0–0.33) |
| Discarded appliances | 0.01 ± 0.01 (0–0.10) |
| Discarded tires | 0.02 ± 0.03 (0–0.5) |
| Inoperable vehicle | 0.02 ± 0.03 (0–0.16) |
| High weeds | 0.11 ± 0.08 (0–1.0) |
| Security measures index (range, –1.71 to 5.72; α = 0.51) | |
| Security bars | 0.04 ± 0.04 (0–0.38) |
| Barbed wire | 0.02 ± 0.06 (0–1.0) |
| No trespassing sign | 0.06 ± 0.07 (0–1.0) |
| Beware of dog sign | 0.02 ± 0.02 (0–0.09) |
| Security sign | 0.20 ± 0.12 (0–1.0) |
| Fencing | 0.32 ± 0.15 (0–1.0) |
| Incidents per area | |
| Nuisance index (range, –1.05 to 6.52; α = 0.81) | |
| Shopping carts | 0.03 ± 0.10 (0–1.0) |
| Total drug paraphernalia | 0.01 ± 0.05 (0–0.38) |
| Inoperable car | 0.04 ± 0.14 (0–1.5) |
| Food garbage | 6.46 ± 5.64 (0–50.0) |
| Dog waste | 0.16 ± 0.23 (0–2.0) |
| Tree debris | 0.38 ± 0.40 (0–3.0) |
| Discarded furniture | 0.14 ± 0.20 (0–2.0) |
| Discarded appliances | 0.07 ± 0.12 (0–1.0) |
| Large trash | 0.59 ± 0.58 (0–4.0) |
| Batteries | 0.25 ± 0.33 (0–3.0) |
| Condoms | 0.10 ± 0.19 (0–3.0) |
| Fallen wire | 0.13 ± 0.19 (0–1.3) |
| Broken manhole cover | 0.45 ± 0.48 (0–4.0) |
| Uncovered drain | 0.04 ± 0.12 (0–2.0) |
| Cigarette butts | 4.45 ± 3.50 (0–28.0) |
| Alcohol container | 1.48 ± 3.50 (0–11.0) |
| Clothes | 0.41 ± 0.53 (0–5.0) |
| Baby diapers | 0.04 ± 0.10 (0–1.0) |
| Construction debris | 0.09 ± 0.27 (0–4.0) |
| Deep holes | 0.03 ± 0.10 (0–1.0) |
| Standing water | 0.39 ± 0.69 (0–7.2) |
| Litter | 14.11 ± 9.68 (0–112.0) |
| Broken glass | 4.91 ± 4.15 (0–24.0) |
| High weeds | 2.30 ± 1.76 (0–21.0) |
| Graffiti | 0.003 ± 0.02 (0–0.25) |
| Crime count index (range, –0.66 to 11.36; α = 0.98) | |
| Violent crime | 0.06 ± 0.78 (0.63–11.53) |
| Vice crime | 0.06 ± 0.72 (0.67–10.24) |
| Vehicle crime | 0.05 ± 0.68 (0.63–7.66) |
| Theft crime | 0.07 ± 0.81 (0.63–12.28) |
| Property crime | 0.07 ± 0.79 (0.63–9.92) |
| Area-level proportions | |
| Tenure (proportion renter) | Index mean ± SD = 0.00 ± 1.00 (range, –2.14 to 1.36) |
| Tenure (0 = owner; 1 = rented) | Variable mean ± SD = 0.55 ± 0.22 |
| Vacancy (proportion vacant) | Index mean ± SD = 0.00 ± 1.00 (range, –0.82 to 3.96) |
| Vacancy (0 = occupied; 1 = not) | Variable mean ± SD = 0.16 ± 0.14 |
| Cronbach’s α was used to assess the reliability of the standardized indices. |
Index correlations at PAC level: CAP, City of Durham, North Carolina (USA), 2008.
| Index | Housing | Property | Security | Tenure | Vacancy | Crime | Nuisance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing damage | 1.00 | |||||||||||||
| Property disorder | 0.55 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
| Security measures | 0.15 | 0.09 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
| Tenure | 0.43 | 0.61 | –0.22 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| Vacancy | 0.50 | 0.55 | –0.26 | 0.58 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| Crime | 0.11 | 0.30 | –0.05 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Nuisance | 0.42 | 0.48 | –0.002 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.52 | 1.00 | |||||||
Description of women residing in the CAP geographical area, Durham County, North Carolina (USA), 2004–2008.
| Characteristic | Measure |
|---|---|
| Maternal race [ | |
| White non-Hispanic | 739 (17.27) |
| Black non-Hispanic | 1,850 (43.23) |
| Hispanic | 1,690 (39.50) |
| Birth outcomes | |
| Dichotomous birth outcomes [ | |
| PTB | 365 (8.53) |
| LBW | 354 (8.27) |
| SGA | 501 (11.71) |
| Continuous birth outcomes (mean ± SD) | |
| Birth weight (g) | 3248.63 ± 581.95 |
| BWPGA | 43.08 ± 28.14 |
| Maternal covariates | |
| Categorical maternal age, years [ | |
| 15–19 | 705 (16.48) |
| 20–24 | 1,388 (32.44) |
| 25–29 | 1,046 (24.44) |
| 30–34 | 730 (17.06) |
| 35–39 | 335 (7.83) |
| 40–44 | 75 (1.75) |
| Continuous maternal age, years (mean ± SD) | 25.58 ± 6.07 |
| Categorical maternal education, mothers ≥ 18 years of age [ | |
| > High school | 1,141 (26.80) |
| High school | 1,062 (25.95) |
| < High school | 2,054 (48.25) |
| Dichotomous marital status [ | |
| Married | 1,361 (31.81) |
| Not married | 2,917 (68.19) |
| Parity [ | |
| First birth | 1,681 (39.28) |
| ≥ Second birth | 2,598 (60.72) |
| Infant sex [ | |
| Female | 2,106 (49.22) |
| Male | 2,173 (50.78) |
| PAC mean index values | |
| Housing damage | –0.06 ± 0.51 |
| Property disorder | 0.06 ± 0.63 |
| Security measures | –0.07 ± 0.53 |
| Tenure status | 0.06 ± 0.70 |
| Vacancy status | –0.07 ± 0.54 |
| Total crime | 1.31 ± 3.11 |
| Total nuisances | 0.42 ± 0.97 |
Multilevel logistic regression results of continuous PAC-level indices: unadjusted and adjusted models representing the effect of one-unit change in continuous built environment exposures on dichotomous birth outcomes [OR (95% CI)].
| Dichotomous outcomes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTB | SGA | LBW | ||||||||||
| Index | Unadjusted | Adjusted | Unadjusted | Adjusted | Unadjusted | Adjusted | ||||||
| Housing damage | 1.36 (1.10, 1.67) | 1.21 (0.98, 1.49) | 1.49 (1.26, 1.75) | 1.27 (1.08, 1.51) | 1.33 (1.09, 1.62) | 1.07 (0.88, 1.31) | ||||||
| Property disorder | 1.49 (1.22, 1.82) | 1.20 (0.97, 1.50) | 1.49 (1.27, 1.75) | 1.13 (0.95, 1.35) | 1.55 (1.28, 1.87) | 1.12 (0.93, 1.35) | ||||||
| Security measure | 0.93 (0.72, 1.20) | 0.91 (0.71, 1.15) | 1.05 (0.86, 1.29) | 0.99 (0.81, 1.20) | 1.09 (0.86, 1.37) | 1.01 (0.83, 1.24) | ||||||
| Tenure status | 1.39 (1.14, 1.69) | 1.23 (1.00, 1.52) | 1.20 (1.03, 1.40) | 0.97 (0.83, 1.15) | 1.35 (1.11, 1.63) | 1.08 (0.91, 1.29) | ||||||
| Vacancy status | 1.40 (1.12, 1.75) | 1.20 (0.96, 1.50) | 1.49 (1.23, 1.80) | 1.19 (0.99, 1.44) | 1.36 (1.09, 1.68) | 1.05 (0.86, 1.28) | ||||||
| Total crime | 1.02 (0.94, 1.10) | 1.00 (0.94, 1.07) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.05) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.07) | 0.99 (0.95, 1.04) | ||||||
| Nuisance count | 1.23 (1.06, 1.42) | 1.10 (0.95, 1.27) | 1.18 (1.02, 1.34) | 1.02 (0.91, 1.15) | 1.20 (1.04, 1.39) | 1.01 (0.90, 1.14) | ||||||
Multilevel linear regression results of continuous PAC-level indices; unadjusted and adjusted models representing the effect of one-unit change in continuous built environment exposures on continuous birth outcomes [β (95% (CI)].
| Continuous outcomes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth weight | BWPGA | |||||||
| Index | Unadjusted | Adjusted | Unadjusted | Adjusted | ||||
| Housing damage | –119.14 (–162.35, –75.93) | –50.27 (–89.21, –11.34) | –5.52 (–7.50, –3.55) | –2.19 (–3.96, –0.42) | ||||
| Property disorder | –130.13 (–167.26, –93.00) | –26.77 (–62.28, 9.73) | –5.65 (–7.35, –3.96) | –0.72 (–2.37, 0.92) | ||||
| Security measure | –0.34 (–51.48, 50.80) | 6.16 (–35.01, 47.34) | –0.31 (–2.59, 1.97) | 0.07 (–1.72, 1.86) | ||||
| Tenure status | –104.20 (–138.43, –69.96) | –25.71 (–58.57, 7.15) | –4.13 (–5.69, –2.56) | –0.10 (–1.55, 1.35) | ||||
| Vacancy status | –119.24 (–161.82, –76.67) | –34.86 (–73.50, 3.78) | –5.48 (–7.41, –3.55) | –1.44 (–3.18, 0.29) | ||||
| Total crime | –15.92 (–34.44, 2.60) | 3.03 (–10.06, 16.12) | –0.64 (–1.42, 0.13) | 0.08 (–0.39, 0.56) | ||||
| Nuisance count | –73.44 (–102.54, –44.34) | –7.03 (–33.49, 19.42) | –2.98 (–4.29, –1.66) | 0.11 (–1.05, 1.26) | ||||