PURPOSE: Female breast cancer survivors, a large and growing population, experience impaired physical functioning after treatment. Survivors living in impoverished neighborhoods may suffer even greater impairment, but the mechanisms linking neighborhood poverty and individual outcomes are poorly understood. This study sought to identify mediators of the effect of neighborhood poverty on physical functioning using longitudinal data from a Missouri cancer registry-based sample of 909 female breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Survivors were recruited 1 year after diagnosis (Y1) and completed two telephone interviews, at Y1 and 1 year later (Y2). The association between census-tract-level poverty and physical functioning (RAND SF-36) was tested using a multilevel a priori path model with 19 hypothesized mediators, demographic and socioeconomic confounders, and covariates. Hypothesized mediators included clinical and treatment variables, psychosocial factors (depression, stress, social support), perceived neighborhood characteristics, behavioral risk factors (physical activity, smoking, body mass index, alcohol use), and comorbidity. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, women living in neighborhoods with higher poverty were more likely to report lower physical functioning at Y2 (β = -.19, p < .001). The final mediated model fit the data well (χ(2)(8) = 12.25, p = 0.14; CFI = .996; RMSEA = .024). The effect of neighborhood poverty on physical functioning was fully mediated by physical activity and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors living in neighborhoods with greater poverty reported lower physical functioning, but this effect was fully explained by physical activity and body mass index. Community-based lifestyle interventions sensitive to the unique challenges faced by cancer survivors and the challenges of living in a high-poverty neighborhood are needed to ameliorate neighborhood socioeconomic disparities in physical functioning.
PURPOSE: Female breast cancer survivors, a large and growing population, experience impaired physical functioning after treatment. Survivors living in impoverished neighborhoods may suffer even greater impairment, but the mechanisms linking neighborhood poverty and individual outcomes are poorly understood. This study sought to identify mediators of the effect of neighborhood poverty on physical functioning using longitudinal data from a Missouri cancer registry-based sample of 909 female breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Survivors were recruited 1 year after diagnosis (Y1) and completed two telephone interviews, at Y1 and 1 year later (Y2). The association between census-tract-level poverty and physical functioning (RAND SF-36) was tested using a multilevel a priori path model with 19 hypothesized mediators, demographic and socioeconomic confounders, and covariates. Hypothesized mediators included clinical and treatment variables, psychosocial factors (depression, stress, social support), perceived neighborhood characteristics, behavioral risk factors (physical activity, smoking, body mass index, alcohol use), and comorbidity. RESULTS: In unadjusted analysis, women living in neighborhoods with higher poverty were more likely to report lower physical functioning at Y2 (β = -.19, p < .001). The final mediated model fit the data well (χ(2)(8) = 12.25, p = 0.14; CFI = .996; RMSEA = .024). The effect of neighborhood poverty on physical functioning was fully mediated by physical activity and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancer survivors living in neighborhoods with greater poverty reported lower physical functioning, but this effect was fully explained by physical activity and body mass index. Community-based lifestyle interventions sensitive to the unique challenges faced by cancer survivors and the challenges of living in a high-poverty neighborhood are needed to ameliorate neighborhood socioeconomic disparities in physical functioning.
Authors: A R Giuliano; N Mokuau; C Hughes; G Tortolero-Luna; B Risendal; T E Prewitt; W J McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; Mah-Jabeen Soobader; S V Subramanian; Rosa Carson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Yvonne L Michael; Lisa F Berkman; Graham A Colditz; Michelle D Holmes; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco; Mindy DeRouen; Theresa H M Keegan; Irene H Yen; Mahasin Mujahid; William A Satariano; Sally L Glaser Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ann Marie Flores; Jason Nelson; Lee Sowles; Rebecca G Stephenson; Kathryn Robinson; Andrea Cheville; Antoinette P Sander; William J Blot Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2020-03-10
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Stephen J Mooney; Mario Schootman; Andrew G Rundle; Adana A M Llanos; Bo Qin; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera; Xinyi Xu Journal: Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol Date: 2022-03-24
Authors: Benjamin W Chrisinger; Sparkle Springfield; Eric A Whitsel; Aladdin H Shadyab; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Lorena Garcia; Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: M Schootman; M Perez; J C Schootman; Q Fu; A McVay; J Margenthaler; G A Colditz; M W Kreuter; D B Jeffe Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Janet N Chu; Alison J Canchola; Theresa H M Keegan; Alyssa Nickell; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Rosa L Yu; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Adana A M Llanos; Stephen J Mooney; Andrew G Rundle; Bo Qin; Yong Lin; Karen S Pawlish; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 3.295