4.6 Article

The effect of adverse housing and neighborhood conditions on the development of diabetes mellitus among middle-aged African Americans

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 166, 期 4, 页码 379-387

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm190

关键词

African Americans; aging; diabetes mellitus; housing; questionnaires; residence characteristics

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG010436, AG10436] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK020579, R21 DK067172, DK067172, P60 DK020579] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors examined the associations of observed neighborhood (block face) and housing conditions with the incidence of diabetes by using data from 644 subjects in the African-American Health Study (St. Louis area, Missouri). They also investigated five mediating pathways (health behavior, psychosocial, health status, access to medical care, and sociodemographic characteristics) if significant associations were identified. The external appearance of the block the subjects lived on and housing conditions were rated as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Subjects reported about neighborhood desirability. Self-reported diabetes was obtained at baseline and 3 years later. Of 644 subjects without self-reported diabetes, 10.3% reported having diabetes at the 3-year follow-up. Every housing condition rated as fair-poor was associated with an increased risk of diabetes, with odds ratios ranging from 2.53 (95% confidence interval: 1.47, 4.34 for physical condition inside the building) to 1.78 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 3.07 for cleanliness inside the building) in unadjusted analyses. No association was found between any of the block face conditions or perceived neighborhood conditions and incident diabetes. The odds ratios for the five housing conditions were unaffected when adjusted for the mediating pathways. Poor housing conditions appear to be an independent contributor to the risk of incident diabetes in urban, middle-aged African Americans.

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