Search

Background: Inequality in health outcomes in relation to Americans' socioeconomic position is rising.Objective: First, to evaluate the spatial relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)-related events; second, to evaluate the relative extent to which neighborhood disadvantage and physiologic risk account for neighborhood-level variation in ASCVD event rates.Design: Observational cohort analysis of geocoded longitudinal electronic health records.Setting: A single academic health center and surrounding neighborhoods in northeastern Ohio.Patients: 109 793 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS) who had an outpatient lipid panel drawn between 2007 and 2010. The date of the first qualifying lipid panel served as the study baseline.Measurements: Time from baseline to the first occurrence of a major ASCVD event (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) within 5 years, modeled as a function of a locally derived neighborhood disadvantage index (NDI) and the predicted 5-year ASCVD event rate from the Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Model (PCERM) of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. Outcome data were censored if no CCHS encounters occurred for 2 consecutive years or when state death data were no longer available (that is, from 2014 onward).Results: The PCERM systematically underpredicted ASCVD event risk among patients from disadvantaged communities. Model discrimination was poorer among these patients (concordance index [C], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.74]) than those from the most affluent communities (C, 0.80 [CI, 0.78 to 0.81]). The NDI alone accounted for 32.0% of census tract-level variation in ASCVD event rates, compared with 10.0% accounted for by the PCERM.Limitations: Patients from affluent communities were overrepresented. Outcomes of patients who received treatment for cardiovascular disease at Cleveland Clinic were assumed to be independent of whether the patients came from a disadvantaged or an affluent neighborhood.Conclusion: Neighborhood disadvantage may be a powerful regulator of ASCVD event risk. In addition to supplemental risk models and clinical screening criteria, population-based solutions are needed to ameliorate the deleterious effects of neighborhood disadvantage on health outcomes.Primary Funding Source: The Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland and National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence on the effects of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on dementia risk in racially and ethically diverse populations is limited. Our objective was to evaluate the relative extent to which neighborhood disadvantage accounts for racial/ethnic variation in dementia incidence rates. Secondarily, we evaluated the spatial relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and dementia risk. Methods: In this retrospective study using electronic health records (EHR) at two regional health systems in Northeast Ohio, participants included 253,421 patients aged >60 years who had an outpatient primary care visit between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015. The date of the first qualifying visit served as the study baseline. Cumulative incidence of composite dementia outcome, defined as EHR‐documented dementia diagnosis or dementia‐related death, stratified by neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation (as measured by Area Deprivation Index) was determined by competing‐risk regression analysis, with non‐dementia‐related death as the competing risk. Fine‐Gray sub‐distribution hazard ratios were determined for neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, race/ethnicity, and clinical risk factors. The degree to which neighborhood socioeconomic position accounted for racial/ethnic disparities in the incidence of composite dementia outcome was evaluated via mediation analysis with Poisson rate models. Results: Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased risk of EHR‐documented dementia diagnosis or dementia‐related death (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.69–1.84) after adjusting for age and sex. The effect of neighborhood disadvantage on this composite dementia outcome remained after accounting for known medical risk factors of dementia. Mediation analysis indicated that neighborhood disadvantage accounted for 34% and 29% of the elevated risk for composite dementia outcome in Hispanic and Black patients compared to White patients, respectively. Conclusion: Neighborhood disadvantage is related to the risk of EHR‐documented dementia diagnosis or dementia‐related death and accounts for a portion of racial/ethnic differences in dementia burden, even after adjustment for clinically important confounders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its development, Singh's 2003 Area Deprivation Index (ADI) has been routinely used by researchers to measure a global construct of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and to investigate how living in neighborhoods of different levels of socioeconomic deprivation affects individuals' health. We empirically tested the ADI's dimensionality, using 2013–2017 American Community Survey tract-level estimates (N = 73,056), and the stability of its performance across time and place. Factor analysis findings illuminated three distinct dimensions, the ADI-3, consisting of neighborhood financial strength, economic hardship and inequality, and educational attainment. The prior-assumed unidimensional ADI measure fails standard tests of construct validity. Findings from multigroup structural equation modeling across 2009 and 2017 and between New York and Minnesota suggest that the ADI performs with only partial stability across time and place. In order to most precisely understand the complex role of neighborhood socioeconomic position in health, public health researchers must integrate construct-valid and regionally and temporally relevant measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]