Eric S Kim1, Ying Chen2, Ichiro Kawachi3, Tyler J VanderWeele4. 1. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Electronic address: eric.kim@psych.ubc.ca. 2. Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing research documents associations between neighborhood social cohesion with better health and well-being. However, other work has identified social cohesion's "dark side" and its ability to promote negative outcomes. It remains unclear if such diverging findings are attributable to differences in study design, or other reasons. To better capture its potential heterogeneous effects, we took an outcome-wide analytic approach to examine perceived neighborhood social cohesion in relation to a range of health and well-being outcomes. METHODS: Data were from 12,998 participants in the Health and Retirement Study-a large, diverse, prospective, and nationally representative cohort of U.S. adults age >50. Multiple regression models evaluated if social cohesion was associated with physical health, health behavior, psychological well-being, psychological distress, and social well-being outcomes. All models adjusted for sociodemographics, personality, and numerous baseline health and well-being characteristics. To evaluate the effects of change in cohesion, we adjusted for prior social cohesion. Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Perceived neighborhood social cohesion was not associated with most physical health outcomes (except for reduced risk of physical functioning limitations and better self-rated health) nor health behavior outcomes (except for more binge drinking). However, it was associated with numerous subsequent psychosocial well-being (i.e., higher: positive affect, life satisfaction, optimism, purpose in life, mastery, health mastery, financial mastery; reduced likelihood of infrequent contact with friends) and psychological distress outcomes (i.e., lower depression, hopelessness, negative affect, loneliness) over the 4-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: With further research, these results suggest that perceived neighborhood social cohesion might be a valuable target for innovative policies aimed at improving well-being.
BACKGROUND: Growing research documents associations between neighborhood social cohesion with better health and well-being. However, other work has identified social cohesion's "dark side" and its ability to promote negative outcomes. It remains unclear if such diverging findings are attributable to differences in study design, or other reasons. To better capture its potential heterogeneous effects, we took an outcome-wide analytic approach to examine perceived neighborhood social cohesion in relation to a range of health and well-being outcomes. METHODS: Data were from 12,998 participants in the Health and Retirement Study-a large, diverse, prospective, and nationally representative cohort of U.S. adults age >50. Multiple regression models evaluated if social cohesion was associated with physical health, health behavior, psychological well-being, psychological distress, and social well-being outcomes. All models adjusted for sociodemographics, personality, and numerous baseline health and well-being characteristics. To evaluate the effects of change in cohesion, we adjusted for prior social cohesion. Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Perceived neighborhood social cohesion was not associated with most physical health outcomes (except for reduced risk of physical functioning limitations and better self-rated health) nor health behavior outcomes (except for more binge drinking). However, it was associated with numerous subsequent psychosocial well-being (i.e., higher: positive affect, life satisfaction, optimism, purpose in life, mastery, health mastery, financial mastery; reduced likelihood of infrequent contact with friends) and psychological distress outcomes (i.e., lower depression, hopelessness, negative affect, loneliness) over the 4-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: With further research, these results suggest that perceived neighborhood social cohesion might be a valuable target for innovative policies aimed at improving well-being.
Authors: Rolf H H Groenwold; A Rogier T Donders; Kit C B Roes; Frank E Harrell; Karel G M Moons Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Carlos F Mendes de Leon; Kathleen A Cagney; Julia L Bienias; Lisa L Barnes; Kimberly A Skarupski; Paul A Scherr; Denis A Evans Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2009-02
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-06-29
Authors: Angie L Cradock; Ichiro Kawachi; Graham A Colditz; Steven L Gortmaker; Stephen L Buka Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2008-11-25 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Lauren R Gullett; Dana M Alhasan; Symielle A Gaston; W Braxton Jackson; Ichiro Kawachi; Chandra L Jackson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Kevin Villalobos; Francisco A Montiel Ishino; Timothy S McNeel; Faustine Williams Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska; Piotr Bialowolski; Matthew T Lee; Ying Chen; Tyler J VanderWeele; Eileen McNeely Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Akilah J Dulin; Jee Won Park; Matthew M Scarpaci; Laura A Dionne; Mario Sims; Belinda L Needham; Joseph L Fava; Charles B Eaton; Alka M Kanaya; Namratha R Kandula; Eric B Loucks; Chanelle J Howe Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 4.135