Search

Introduction Despite the growing recognition of the importance of neighborhood conditions for cardiometabolic health, causal relationships have been difficult to establish owing to a reliance on cross-sectional designs and selection bias. This is the first natural experiment to examine the impact of neighborhood revitalization on cardiometabolic outcomes in residents from 2 predominantly African American neighborhoods, one of which has experienced significant revitalization (intervention), whereas the other has not (comparison). Methods The sample included 532 adults (95% African American, 80% female, mean age=58.9 years) from 2 sociodemographically similar, low-income neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, PA, with preintervention and postintervention measures (2016 and 2018) of BMI, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and covariates. Data were collected in 2016 and 2018 and analyzed in 2020. Results Difference-in-difference analyses showed significant improvement in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in intervention residents relative to that in the comparison neighborhood (β=3.88, 95% CI=0.47, 7.29). There was also a significant difference-in-difference estimate in diastolic blood pressure (β=3.00, 95% CI=0.57, 5.43), with residents of the intervention neighborhood showing a greater increase in diastolic blood pressure than those in the comparison neighborhood. No statistically significant differences were found for other outcomes. Conclusions Investing in disadvantaged neighborhoods has been suggested as a strategy to reduce health disparities. Using a natural experiment, findings suggest that improving neighborhood conditions may have a mixed impact on certain aspects of cardiometabolic health. Findings underscore the importance of examining the upstream causes of health disparities using rigorous designs and longer follow-up periods that provide more powerful tests of causality.

Study objectives The current study examined the prevalence and correlates of obstructive sleep apnea in a sample of low-income, predominantly African-American women using two waves of data. Methods Participants were adults from two urban neighborhoods who enrolled in the PHRESH Zzz Study (N = 828; Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighborhoods, Sleep, and Health). A subsample who reported never receiving OSA diagnosis completed home sleep apnea testing in 2016 (n = 269, mean age 55.0 years, 79.6% female) and again in 2018 (n = 135). Correlates of OSA tested included demographic and anthropometric variables, health behavior/conditions, psychological distress and general health, smoking status, actigraphy-measured sleep, and neighborhood factors measured at baseline. Results 18.0% of all 2016 participants reported receiving physician diagnoses of OSA. Among those who completed in–home assessment, 19.3% had AHI ≥15 and 33.8% had AHI ≥5 plus one or more sleep symptoms. Estimates of the prevalence of OSA in all 2016 participants were 33.8%–45.7% based on physician diagnoses and AHI results, depending on the criteria used. Age, gender, BMI, blood pressure, habitual snoring, neighborhood walkability, actigraphy-measured sleep characteristics, and smoking were concurrently associated with OSA in 2016. Changes in AHI categories from 2016 to 2018 were documented. Conclusions Low-income African Americans, including women, are a high-risk group for OSA, but remain under-diagnosed and under-treated. The current findings show a high prevalence of OSA in African-American women and are among the first to demonstrate that both individual and neighborhood factors are implicated in OSA prevalence.

This study examined the effect of neighborhood investments on neighborhood walkability, presence of incivilities, and crime in two low-income, primarily African American neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, USA. During the study period, one of the neighborhoods (the intervention neighborhood) received substantially more publicly-funded investments than a demographically matched comparison neighborhood. Comparisons between the neighborhoods showed a significant difference-in-difference for all three outcomes. The intervention neighborhood experienced significantly more change related to improved walkability and decreased incivilities. However, the control neighborhood experienced better crime-related outcomes. Analyses that focused on resident proximity to investments found similar results. This highlights the nuances of neighborhood investment, which is important to consider when thinking about public policy.