Yeonwoo Kim1, Erica Twardzik1, Suzanne E Judd1, Natalie Colabianchi2. 1. From the Department of Kinesiology (Y.K.), University of Texas at Arlington, TX; School of Kinesiology (E.T.), University of Michigan, MI; Department of Biostatistics (S.E.J.), University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL; School of Kinesiology (N.C.), University of Michigan, MI. 2. From the Department of Kinesiology (Y.K.), University of Texas at Arlington, TX; School of Kinesiology (E.T.), University of Michigan, MI; Department of Biostatistics (S.E.J.), University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL; School of Kinesiology (N.C.), University of Michigan, MI. colabian@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize overall patterns of the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) on stroke incidence and uncover potential gaps in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of studies examining the association between nSES and stroke incidence, independent of individual SES. METHODS: Four electronic databases and reference lists of included articles were searched, and corresponding authors were contacted to locate additional studies. A keyword search strategy included the 3 broad domains of neighborhood, SES, and stroke. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria (e.g., nSES as an exposure, individual SES as a covariate, and stroke incidence as an outcome). We coded study methodology and findings across the 8 studies. RESULTS: The results provide evidence for the overall nSES and stroke incidence association in Sweden and Japan, but not within the United States. Findings were inconclusive when examining the nSES-stroke incidence association stratified by race. We found evidence for the mediating role of biological factors in the nSES-stroke incidence association. CONCLUSIONS: Higher neighborhood disadvantage was found to be associated with higher stroke risk, but it was not significant in all the studies. The relationship between nSES and stroke risk within different racial groups in the United States was inconclusive. Inconsistencies may be driven by differences in covariate adjustment (e.g., individual-level sociodemographic characteristics and neighborhood-level racial composition). Additional research is needed to investigate potential intermediate and modifiable factors of the association between nSES and stroke incidence, which could serve as intervention points.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize overall patterns of the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) on stroke incidence and uncover potential gaps in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of studies examining the association between nSES and stroke incidence, independent of individual SES. METHODS: Four electronic databases and reference lists of included articles were searched, and corresponding authors were contacted to locate additional studies. A keyword search strategy included the 3 broad domains of neighborhood, SES, and stroke. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria (e.g., nSES as an exposure, individual SES as a covariate, and stroke incidence as an outcome). We coded study methodology and findings across the 8 studies. RESULTS: The results provide evidence for the overall nSES and stroke incidence association in Sweden and Japan, but not within the United States. Findings were inconclusive when examining the nSES-stroke incidence association stratified by race. We found evidence for the mediating role of biological factors in the nSES-stroke incidence association. CONCLUSIONS: Higher neighborhood disadvantage was found to be associated with higher stroke risk, but it was not significant in all the studies. The relationship between nSES and stroke risk within different racial groups in the United States was inconclusive. Inconsistencies may be driven by differences in covariate adjustment (e.g., individual-level sociodemographic characteristics and neighborhood-level racial composition). Additional research is needed to investigate potential intermediate and modifiable factors of the association between nSES and stroke incidence, which could serve as intervention points.
Authors: Cari Jo Clark; Hongfei Guo; Scott Lunos; Neelum T Aggarwal; Todd Beck; Denis A Evans; Carlos Mendes de Leon; Susan A Everson-Rose Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Connor M Sheehan; Phillip A Cantu; Daniel A Powers; Claire E Margerison-Zilko; Catherine Cubbin Journal: Health Place Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Dawn O Kleindorfer; Jane Khoury; Charles J Moomaw; Kathleen Alwell; Daniel Woo; Matthew L Flaherty; Pooja Khatri; Opeolu Adeoye; Simona Ferioli; Joseph P Broderick; Brett M Kissela Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Iain J Marshall; Yanzhong Wang; Siobhan Crichton; Christopher McKevitt; Anthony G Rudd; Charles D A Wolfe Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Marquita S Brooks; Aleena Bennett; Gina S Lovasi; Philip M Hurvitz; Natalie Colabianchi; Virginia J Howard; Jennifer Manly; Suzanne E Judd Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-08-03
Authors: Ellen Holm; Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Thea Bang de Lony; Maurice Lembeck; Hanne Pedersen; Charlotte Andersson; Peter Johannsen; Terese Sara Høj Jørgensen; Christian Torp-Pedersen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-03-24