Systematic Review of Longitudinal Evidence and Methodologies for Research on Neighborhood Characteristics and Brain Health

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Yvonne L Michael, A. Senerat, Channa Buxbaum, Ugonwa Ezeanyagu, Timothy M. Hughes, Kathleen M Hayden, Julia Langmuir, Lilah M. Besser, Brisa N. Sánchez, Jana A. Hirsch
{"title":"Systematic Review of Longitudinal Evidence and Methodologies for Research on Neighborhood Characteristics and Brain Health","authors":"Yvonne L Michael, A. Senerat, Channa Buxbaum, Ugonwa Ezeanyagu, Timothy M. Hughes, Kathleen M Hayden, Julia Langmuir, Lilah M. Besser, Brisa N. Sánchez, Jana A. Hirsch","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2024.1606677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Synthesize longitudinal research evaluating neighborhood environments and cognition to identify methodological approaches, findings, and gaps.Methods: Included studies evaluated associations between neighborhood and cognition longitudinally among adults >45 years (or mean age of 65 years) living in developed nations. We extracted data on sample characteristics, exposures, outcomes, methods, overall findings, and assessment of disparities.Results: Forty studies met our inclusion criteria. Most (65%) measured exposure only once and a majority focused on green space and/or blue space (water), neighborhood socioeconomic status, and recreation/physical activity facilities. Similarly, over half studied incident impairment, cognitive function or decline (70%), with one examining MRI (2.5%) or Alzheimer’s disease (7.5%). While most studies used repeated measures analysis to evaluate changes in the brain health outcome (51%), many studies did not account for any type of correlation within neighborhoods (35%). Less than half evaluated effect modification by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or sex/gender. Evidence was mixed and dependent on exposure or outcome assessed.Conclusion: Although longitudinal research evaluating neighborhood and cognitive decline has expanded, gaps remain in types of exposures, outcomes, analytic approaches, and sample diversity.","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2024.1606677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Synthesize longitudinal research evaluating neighborhood environments and cognition to identify methodological approaches, findings, and gaps.Methods: Included studies evaluated associations between neighborhood and cognition longitudinally among adults >45 years (or mean age of 65 years) living in developed nations. We extracted data on sample characteristics, exposures, outcomes, methods, overall findings, and assessment of disparities.Results: Forty studies met our inclusion criteria. Most (65%) measured exposure only once and a majority focused on green space and/or blue space (water), neighborhood socioeconomic status, and recreation/physical activity facilities. Similarly, over half studied incident impairment, cognitive function or decline (70%), with one examining MRI (2.5%) or Alzheimer’s disease (7.5%). While most studies used repeated measures analysis to evaluate changes in the brain health outcome (51%), many studies did not account for any type of correlation within neighborhoods (35%). Less than half evaluated effect modification by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or sex/gender. Evidence was mixed and dependent on exposure or outcome assessed.Conclusion: Although longitudinal research evaluating neighborhood and cognitive decline has expanded, gaps remain in types of exposures, outcomes, analytic approaches, and sample diversity.
关于邻里特征与脑健康研究的纵向证据和方法的系统回顾
目标:综合评估邻里环境和认知的纵向研究,确定研究方法和发现以及差距:综合评估邻里环境和认知能力的纵向研究,以确定方法、发现和差距:纳入的研究对居住在发达国家、年龄大于 45 岁(或平均年龄为 65 岁)的成年人的邻里关系与认知能力之间的关系进行了纵向评估。我们提取了有关样本特征、暴露、结果、方法、总体发现和差异评估的数据:结果:40 项研究符合我们的纳入标准。大多数研究(65%)只测量了一次暴露情况,而且大多数研究侧重于绿色空间和/或蓝色空间(水)、社区社会经济状况以及娱乐/体育活动设施。同样,半数以上的研究对事件损伤、认知功能或衰退进行了研究(70%),其中一项研究对核磁共振成像(2.5%)或阿尔茨海默病(7.5%)进行了研究。虽然大多数研究使用重复测量分析来评估脑健康结果的变化(51%),但许多研究并未考虑邻里间任何类型的相关性(35%)。只有不到一半的研究评估了种族/民族、社会经济地位和/或性别/性取向对效果的影响。证据参差不齐,且取决于所评估的暴露或结果:尽管评估邻里关系和认知能力下降的纵向研究有所扩大,但在暴露类型、结果、分析方法和样本多样性方面仍存在差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Nursing-Community and Home Care
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信