4.7 Article

Perceived neighborhood social cohesion and stroke

Journal

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages 49-55

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.001

Keywords

United States; Stroke; Epidemiology; Public health; Neighborhood social cohesion; Health psychology; Positive psychology

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research in the last three decades has shown that negative neighborhood factors such as neighborhood violence, noise, traffic, litter, low neighborhood socioeconomic status, and poor air quality increase the risk of poor health. Fewer studies have examined the potential protective effect that neighborhood factors can have on health, particularly stroke. We examined whether higher perceived neighborhood social cohesion was associated with lower stroke incidence after adjusting for traditional risk and psychological factors that have been linked with stroke risk. Prospective data from the Health and Retirement Study-a nationally representative panel study of American adults over the age of 50-were used. Analyses were conducted on a subset of 6740 adults who were stroke-free at baseline. Analyses adjusted for chronic illnesses and relevant sociodemographic, behavioral, and psychosocial factors. Over a four-year follow-up, higher perceived neighborhood social cohesion was associated with a lower risk of stroke. Each standard deviation increase in perceived neighborhood social cohesion was associated with a multivariate-adjusted odds ratio (O.R.) of 0.85 for stroke incidence (95% Cl, 0.75-0.97, p < 0.05). The effect of perceived neighborhood social cohesion remained significant after adjusting for a comprehensive set of risk factors. Therefore, perceived neighborhood social cohesion plays an important role in protecting against stroke. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available