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

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.3389/phrs.2024.1606677
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":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systematic Review of Longitudinal Evidence and Methodologies for Research on Neighborhood Characteristics and Brain Health
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Climate, Atmospheric Pollution, and Natural Disasters on Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes Mellitus in Drylands: A Scoping Review Let's Be Clear-Health Impact Assessments or Assessing Health Impacts? Unraveling Herpes Zoster Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Its Predictors: Insights From a Scoping Review Domains and Methods of Medical Device Technology Evaluation: A Systematic Review Deep Diving Into the Cardiovascular Health Paradox: A Journey Towards Personalized Prevention
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1