4.6 Article

Impact of subjective and objective neighbourhood characteristics and individual socioeconomic position on allostatic load: A cross-sectional analysis of an all-age UK household panel study

期刊

HEALTH & PLACE
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102930

关键词

Inequalities; Allostatic load; Neighbourhood; Socioeconomic status

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ESRCES/M008592/1]
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_00022/2, MC_UU_00022/4]
  3. Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office [SPHSU17, SPHSU19]
  4. ESRC [ES/S007253/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicates that individuals living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are more likely to experience higher levels of stress. Objective neighbourhood indicators show stronger associations with cumulative stress levels than subjective indicators. Individuals with higher socioeconomic status are less affected by negative neighbourhood characteristics, particularly objective measures.
Research suggests that individuals living in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods experience higher levels of stress but this has generally been based on self-reported stress. We used survey-based neighbourhood quality indicators and biomarker data from Understanding Society, linked to census and crime statistics to explore as-sociations of allostatic load (AL), an objective biomarker-based measure of cumulative stress, with subjective and objective neighbourhood characteristics. Analyses of 6887 respondents living in England show greater AL among those living in more disadvantaged areas, with objective measure associations stronger than subjective. Neigh-bourhood inequalities in AL were lower among respondents with higher individual SEP. These results suggest that individual-level SEP mitigates against the impact of negative, particularly objective, neighbourhood char-acteristics. Policies to reduce health inequalities should consider both individual and neighbourhood circumstances.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据