Literature DB >> 34728471

Evaluating the Impact of Social and Built Environments on Health-Related Quality of Life among Cancer Survivors.

Janet N Chu1, Alison J Canchola2, Theresa H M Keegan3, Alyssa Nickell4, Ingrid Oakley-Girvan5, Ann S Hamilton6, Rosa L Yu7, Scarlett Lin Gomez2,8, Salma Shariff-Marco9,8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With almost 17 million U.S. cancer survivors, understanding multilevel factors impacting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is critical to improving survivorship outcomes. Few studies have evaluated neighborhood impact on HRQOL among cancer survivors.
METHODS: We combined sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral data from three registry-based studies in California. Using a three-level mixed linear regression model (participants nested within block groups and study/regions), we examined associations of both independent neighborhood attributes and neighborhood archetypes, which capture interactions inherent among neighborhood attributes, with two HRQOL outcomes, physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) composite scores.
RESULTS: For the 2,477 survivors, 46% were 70+ years, 52% were non-Hispanic White, and 53% had localized disease. In models minimally adjusted for age, stage, and cancer recurrence, HRQOL was associated with neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES), racial/ethnic composition, population density, street connectivity, restaurant environment index, traffic density, urbanicity, crowding, rental properties, and non-single family units. In fully adjusted models, higher nSES remained associated with better PCS, and restaurant environment index, specifically more unhealthy restaurants, associated with worse MCS. In multivariable-adjusted models of neighborhood archetype, compared with upper middle-class suburb, Hispanic small town and inner city had lower PCS, and high status had higher MCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Among survivors, higher nSES was associated with better HRQOL; more unhealthy restaurants were associated with worse HQROL. As some neighborhood archetypes were associated with HRQOL, they provide an approach to capture how neighborhood attributes interact to impact HRQOL. IMPACT: Elucidating the pathways through which neighborhood attributes influence HRQOL is important in improving survivorship outcomes. ©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34728471      PMCID: PMC8755614          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  33 in total

1.  Impact of individual- and area-level race/ethnicity on illness intrusiveness among cancer survivors.

Authors:  Corinne R Leach; Rhyan N Vereen; Arthi V Rao; Katherine Ross; Michael A Diefenbach
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Impact of Social and Built Environment Factors on Body Size among Breast Cancer Survivors: The Pathways Study.

Authors:  Salma Shariff-Marco; Julie Von Behren; Peggy Reynolds; Theresa H M Keegan; Andrew Hertz; Marilyn L Kwan; Janise M Roh; Catherine Thomsen; Candyce H Kroenke; Christine Ambrosone; Lawrence H Kushi; Scarlett Lin Gomez
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  The California Neighborhoods Data System: a new resource for examining the impact of neighborhood characteristics on cancer incidence and outcomes in populations.

Authors:  Scarlett Lin Gomez; Sally L Glaser; Laura A McClure; Sarah J Shema; Melissa Kealey; Theresa H M Keegan; William A Satariano
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 4.  The impact of neighborhood social and built environment factors across the cancer continuum: Current research, methodological considerations, and future directions.

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

5.  Random-Effects Meta-analysis: Summarizing Evidence With Caveats.

Authors:  Stylianos Serghiou; Steven N Goodman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The association of neighborhood context with health outcomes among ethnic minority breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Chenkai Wu; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Veronica C Jones; Lisa Barcelo
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-07-27

7.  Neighborhood archetypes for population health research: is there no place like home?

Authors:  Margaret M Weden; Chloe E Bird; José J Escarce; Nicole Lurie
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 4.078

8.  Physical activity and quality of life in adult survivors of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors:  Keith M Bellizzi; Julia H Rowland; Neeraj K Arora; Ann S Hamilton; Melissa Farmer Miller; Noreen M Aziz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Population-based survivorship research using cancer registries: a study of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors.

Authors:  Neeraj K Arora; Ann S Hamilton; Arnold L Potosky; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Keith M Bellizzi; Carrie N Klabunde; Wendy McLaughlin; Jennifer Stevens
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.442

10.  Urban-Rural Variations in Quality-of-Life in Breast Cancer Survivors Prescribed Endocrine Therapy.

Authors:  Caitriona Cahir; Audrey Alforque Thomas; Stephan U Dombrowski; Kathleen Bennett; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 3.390

View more
  1 in total

1.  Development and Validation of Models to Predict Poor Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer.

Authors:  Fiona Schulte; Yan Chen; Yutaka Yasui; Maritza E Ruiz; Wendy Leisenring; Todd M Gibson; Paul C Nathan; Kevin C Oeffinger; Melissa M Hudson; Gregory T Armstrong; Leslie L Robison; Kevin R Krull; I-Chan Huang
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-08-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.