| Literature DB >> 30871154 |
Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson1, Dawn P Misra2.
Abstract
Ecological evidence suggests that neighborhoods with more tax foreclosures also have more adverse birth outcomes. However, whether neighborhood-level tax foreclosures impact individual-level risk for adverse birth outcomes is unknown. We assessed whether living in a neighborhood with high tax foreclosures is associated with a woman's preterm birth (PTB) risk and tested for effect modification by educational attainment, among urban African American women from the Life Influence on Fetal Environments Study (2009⁻2011; n = 686). We linked survey and medical record data to archival, block-group level tax foreclosure data from the county treasurer. We used Modified Poisson regression with robust error variance and included a foreclosure X education interaction in adjusted models. In the overall sample, neighborhood tax foreclosures did not predict PTB (adjusted relative risk: 0.93, CI: 0.74, 1.16), but the association was modified by educational attainment (interaction p = 0.01). Among women with lower education (n = 227), neighborhood tax foreclosures did not predict PTB risk. The association for women with higher education (n = 401) was statistically significant for a reduction in risk for PTB (adjusted relative risk: 0.74, CI: 0.55, 0.98) among those who lived in neighborhoods with high versus low tax foreclosures. Future studies should seek to identify the mechanisms of this association.Entities:
Keywords: African American women; educational attainment; neighborhood effects; preterm birth; segregation; tax foreclosures; urban decline
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30871154 PMCID: PMC6466185 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16060904
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Subjective measures of the physical and social residential environment; Life Influences on Fetal Environments Study (2009–2011).
| 1. I live in a close-knit neighborhood |
| 2. People in my neighborhood are willing to help their neighbors |
| 3. People in my neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other |
| 4. People in my neighborhood do not share the same values |
| 5. People in my neighborhood can be trusted |
| 1. A large selection of fresh fruits and vegetables is available in my neighborhood |
| 2. A large selection of low fat products is available in my neighborhood |
| 1. It is pleasant to walk in my neighborhood |
| 2. The trees in my neighborhood provide enough shade |
| 3. In my neighborhood it is easy to walk to places |
| 4. I often see other people walking in my neighborhood |
| 5. I often see other people exercise in my neighborhood |
| 6. There are stores within walking distance of my home |
| 1. Many people in your neighborhood are afraid to go outside at night |
| 2. There are areas of this neighborhood where everyone knows “trouble” is expected |
| 3. You’re taking a big chance if you walk in this neighborhood alone after dark |
| 4. I feel safe walking in my neighborhood |
| 5. Violence is a problem in my neighborhood |
| 6. I feel very safe from crime in my neighborhood |
| 1. How much of a problem is litter, broken glass, or trash on the sidewalks and streets? |
| 2. How much of a problem is graffiti on buildings and walls? |
| 3. How much of a problem are vacant or deserted houses or storefronts? |
| 4. How much of a problem is drinking in public? |
| 5. How much of a problem is people selling or using drugs? |
| 6. How much of a problem are groups of teenagers or adults hanging out in the neighborhood and causing trouble? |
| 7. How much of a problem is noise in the neighborhood? |
| 8. How much of a problem is yelling or fighting? |
Demographic characteristics of study participants and bivariate modified Poisson regression results; Life Influences on Fetal Environments Study (n = 686), 2009–2011.
| Term ( | PTB ( | RR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| 18–19 | 47 (8.5) | 9 (8.2) | 1.17 | 0.58, 2.37 |
| 20–24 | 191 (33.3) | 42 (37.2) | 1.31 | 0.83, 2.08 |
| 25–29 | 151 (26.3) | 24 (21.2) |
| |
| 30–34 | 94 (16.4) | 21 (18.6) | 1.33 | 0.78, 2.28 |
| 35+ | 90 (15.7) | 17 (15.0) | 1.16 | 0.65, 2.05 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | 443 (77.3) | 82 (72.6) |
| |
| Married | 126 (22.0) | 30 (26.6) | 1.23 | 0.84, 1.80 |
| Education (years) | ||||
| ≤12 | 186 (32.5) | 40 (35.4) | 1.12 | 0.78, 1.58 |
| >12 | 387 (67.5) | 73 (64.6) |
| |
| Income | ||||
| <$35,000 | 303 (52.9) | 65 (57.5) | 1.14 | 0.79, 1.64 |
| ≥$35,000 | 207 (36.1) | 38 (33.6) |
| |
| Time in neighborhood | ||||
| <24 months | 254 (44.3) | 50 (44.3) | 1.00 | 0.71, 1.41 |
| ≥24 months | 309 (53.9) | 61 (54.0) |
| |
| Perceived Social Cohesion | ||||
| Low | 257 (47.2) | 52 (48.6) | 1.04 | 0.74, 1.48 |
| High | 287 (52.7) | 55 (51.4) |
| |
| Perceived Food availability | ||||
| Low | 255 (45) | 56 (50) | 1.18 | 0.84, 1.66 |
| High | 312 (55) | 56 (50) |
| |
| Perceived Walkability | ||||
| Low | 293 (42.5) | 50 (44.6) | 1.08 | 0.77, 1.51 |
| High | 324 (57.6) | 62 (55.4) |
| |
| Perceived Safety | ||||
| Low | 244 (43.6) | 53 (48.2) | 1.17 | 0.83, 1.64 |
| High | 316 (56.4) | 57 (51.8) |
| |
| Perceived Disorder | ||||
| Low | 261 (46.6) | 47 (42.7) |
| |
| High | 299 (53.4) | 63 (57.3 | 1.14 | 0.81, 1.61 |
| Objective NDI | ||||
| Low | 292 (51) | 52 (46) |
| |
| High | 281 (49) | 61 (54) | 1.18 | 0.84, 1.65 |
PTB: Preterm birth; NDI: Neighborhood disadvantage index; RR: Relative risk; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; percentages do not sum to 100 due to missing values (range: 0–11%).
Modified Poisson regression results for associations between number of tax foreclosed properties at the block-group level and risk of preterm birth; overall and stratified by educational attainment; Life Influences on Fetal Environments Study (n = 686), 2009–2011.
| Total Sample | ≤12 Years Education | >12 Years Education | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | Unadjusted | Adjusted | Unadjusted | Adjusted |
| 0.95 | 0.93 | 1.18 | 1.31 | 0.82 | 0.74 |
Adjusted for age, income, marital status, and time in current neighborhood; RR: Relative risk, CI: Confidence interval; neighborhood tax foreclosures X education p for interaction = 0.01.