Anjum Hajat1, Richard F MacLehose2, Anna Rosofsky3, Katherine D Walker3, Jane E Clougherty4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 3. Health Effects Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a vast air pollution epidemiology literature to date and the recognition that lower-socioeconomic status (SES) populations are often disproportionately exposed to pollution, there is little research identifying optimal means of adjusting for confounding by SES in air pollution epidemiology, nor is there a strong understanding of biases that may result from improper adjustment. OBJECTIVE: We aim to provide a conceptualization of SES and a review of approaches to its measurement in the U.S. context and discuss pathways by which SES may influence health and confound effects of air pollution. We explore bias related to measurement and operationalization and identify statistical approaches to reduce bias and confounding. DISCUSSION: Drawing on the social epidemiology, health geography, and economic literatures, we describe how SES, a multifaceted construct operating through myriad pathways, may be conceptualized and operationalized in air pollution epidemiology studies. SES varies across individuals within the contexts of place, time, and culture. Although no single variable or index can fully capture SES, many studies rely on only a single measure. We recommend examining multiple facets of SES appropriate to the study design. Furthermore, investigators should carefully consider the multiple mechanisms by which SES might be operating to identify those SES indicators that may be most appropriate for a given context or study design and assess the impact of improper adjustment on air pollution effect estimates. Last, exploring model contraction and expansion methods may enrich adjustment, whereas statistical approaches, such as quantitative bias analysis, may be used to evaluate residual confounding. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7980.
BACKGROUND: Despite a vast air pollution epidemiology literature to date and the recognition that lower-socioeconomic status (SES) populations are often disproportionately exposed to pollution, there is little research identifying optimal means of adjusting for confounding by SES in air pollution epidemiology, nor is there a strong understanding of biases that may result from improper adjustment. OBJECTIVE: We aim to provide a conceptualization of SES and a review of approaches to its measurement in the U.S. context and discuss pathways by which SES may influence health and confound effects of air pollution. We explore bias related to measurement and operationalization and identify statistical approaches to reduce bias and confounding. DISCUSSION: Drawing on the social epidemiology, health geography, and economic literatures, we describe how SES, a multifaceted construct operating through myriad pathways, may be conceptualized and operationalized in air pollution epidemiology studies. SES varies across individuals within the contexts of place, time, and culture. Although no single variable or index can fully capture SES, many studies rely on only a single measure. We recommend examining multiple facets of SES appropriate to the study design. Furthermore, investigators should carefully consider the multiple mechanisms by which SES might be operating to identify those SES indicators that may be most appropriate for a given context or study design and assess the impact of improper adjustment on air pollution effect estimates. Last, exploring model contraction and expansion methods may enrich adjustment, whereas statistical approaches, such as quantitative bias analysis, may be used to evaluate residual confounding. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7980.
Authors: Yu Ni; Christine T Loftus; Adam A Szpiro; Michael T Young; Marnie F Hazlehurst; Laura E Murphy; Frances A Tylavsky; W Alex Mason; Kaja Z LeWinn; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Emily S Barrett; Nicole R Bush; Catherine J Karr Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Daniel C Belz; Han Woo; Nirupama Putcha; Laura M Paulin; Kirsten Koehler; Ashraf Fawzy; Neil E Alexis; R Graham Barr; Alejandro P Comellas; Christopher B Cooper; David Couper; Mark Dransfield; Amanda J Gassett; MeiLan Han; Eric A Hoffman; Richard E Kanner; Jerry A Krishnan; Fernando J Martinez; Robert Paine; Roger D Peng; Stephen Peters; Cheryl S Pirozzi; Prescott G Woodruff; Joel D Kaufman; Nadia N Hansel Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2022-03-19 Impact factor: 10.753
Authors: Zhenjiang Li; Grace M Christensen; James J Lah; Michele Marcus; Armistead G Russell; Stefanie Ebelt; Lance A Waller; Anke Hüls Journal: Environ Res Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 8.431
Authors: Yi Sun; Xia Li; Tarik Benmarhnia; Jiu-Chiuan Chen; Chantal Avila; David A Sacks; Vicki Chiu; Jeff Slezak; John Molitor; Darios Getahun; Jun Wu Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 13.352
Authors: Erik D Slawsky; Anjum Hajat; Isaac C Rhew; Helen Russette; Erin O Semmens; Joel D Kaufman; Cindy S Leary; Annette L Fitzpatrick Journal: Environ Health Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 5.984