4.7 Article

Racial residential segregation and weight status among US adults

Journal

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages 1289-1303

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.049

Keywords

racial segregation; obesity; body mass index; socioeconomic factors; contextual analysis; health inequalities; USA

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K12-HD-043459] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While the segmentation of residential areas by race is well known to affect the social and economic well-being of the segregated minority group in the United States, the relationship between segregation and health has received less attention. This study examines the association between racial residential segregation, as measured by the isolation index, and individual weight status in US metropolitan areas. Multi-level, nationally representative data are used to consider the central hypothesis that segregation is positively associated with weight status among African Americans, a group that is hyper-segregated and disproportionately affected by unhealthy weight outcomes. Results show that among non-Hispanic blacks, higher racial isolation is positively associated with both a higher body mass index (BMI) and greater odds of being overweight, adjusting for multiple covariates, including measures of individual socioeconomic status. An increase of one standard deviation in the isolation index is associated with a 0.423 unit increase in BMI (p < 0.01), and a 14% increase in the odds of being overweight (p < 0.01). Among whites, there is no significant association between the isolation index and weight status. These findings suggest that in addition to differences among people, differences among places and, in particular, differences in the spatial organization of persons may be relevant to health policy and promotion efforts. (c) 2006 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