Development of Long and Short Forms of the Multilevel Resilience Resource Measure for African American/Black Adults Living with HIV

Characterizing the neighborhood risk environment in multisite clinic-based cohort studies: A practical geocoding and data linkages protocol for protected health information

BACKGROUND

Maintaining patient privacy when geocoding and linking residential address information with neighborhood-level data can create challenges during research. Challenges may arise when study staff have limited training in geocoding and linking data, or when non-study staff with appropriate expertise have limited availability, are unfamiliar with a study's population or objectives, or are not affordable for the study team. Opportunities for data breaches may also arise when working with non-study staff who are not on-site. We detail a free, user-friendly protocol for constructing indices of the neighborhood risk environment during multisite, clinic-based cohort studies that rely on participants' protected health information. This protocol can be implemented by study staff who do not have prior training in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and can help minimize the operational costs of integrating geographic data into public health projects.

METHODS

This protocol demonstrates how to: (1) securely geocode patients' residential addresses in a clinic setting and match geocoded addresses to census tracts using Geographic Information System software (Esri, Redlands, CA); (2) ascertain contextual variables of the risk environment from the American Community Survey and ArcGIS Business Analyst (Esri, Redlands, CA); (3) use geoidentifiers to link neighborhood risk data to census tracts containing geocoded addresses; and (4) assign randomly generated identifiers to census tracts and strip census tracts of their geoidentifiers to maintain patient confidentiality.

RESULTS

Completion of this protocol generates three neighborhood risk indices (i.e., Neighborhood Disadvantage Index, Murder Rate Index, and Assault Rate Index) for patients' coded census tract locations.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol can be used by research personnel without prior GIS experience to easily create objective indices of the neighborhood risk environment while upholding patient confidentiality. Future studies can adapt this protocol to fit their specific patient populations and analytic objectives.

Examining relationships between perceived neighborhood social cohesion and ideal cardiovascular health and whether psychosocial stressors modify observed relationships among JHS, MESA, and MASALA participants

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial stressors increase the risks for cardiovascular disease across diverse populations. However, neighborhood level resilience resources may protect against poor cardiovascular health (CVH). This study used data from three CVH cohorts to examine longitudinally the associations of a resilience resource, perceived neighborhood social cohesion (hereafter referred to as neighborhood social cohesion), with the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 (LS7), and whether psychosocial stressors modify observed relationships.

METHODS

We examined neighborhood social cohesion (measured in tertiles) and LS7 in the Jackson Heart Study, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America study. We used repeated-measures, modified Poisson regression models to estimate the relationship between neighborhood social cohesion and LS7 (primary analysis, n = 6,086) and four biological metrics (body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose; secondary analysis, n = 7,291). We assessed effect measure modification by each psychosocial stressor (e.g., low educational attainment, discrimination).

RESULTS

In primary analyses, adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ideal/intermediate versus poor CVH among high or medium (versus low) neighborhood social cohesion were 1.01 (0.97-1.05) and 1.02 (0.98-1.06), respectively. The psychosocial stressors, low education and discrimination, functioned as effect modifiers. Secondary analyses showed similar findings. Also, in the secondary analyses, there was evidence for effect modification by income.

CONCLUSION

We did not find much support for an association between neighborhood social cohesion and LS7, but did find evidence of effect modification. Some of the effect modification results operated in unexpected directions. Future studies should examine neighborhood social cohesion more comprehensively and assess for effect modification by psychosocial stressors.