Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Should We Improve Neighborhood Health? Evaluating Evidence from a Social Determinant Perspective

  • Social Epidemiology (JM Oakes, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Epidemiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A great deal of public health research and activism has focused on improving the health of persons residing in specific and/or disadvantaged neighborhoods. There is growing consensus that in order to have an impact, interventions must address the social determinants of health, which include access to health care, education, economic stability, neighborhood and built environment, and social context. Yet, there is some question about the best strategy for actually improving a neighborhood’s health.

Objectives

This paper discusses existing experimental evidence for the effects, or lack thereof, of social interventions on the average health of neighborhoods.

Research Design

We conducted a targeted literature review of published research using PubMed, Social Science Index, and Google Scholar databases. We summarize and synthesize key evaluation research, focusing on experimental studies and those doing comparative analyses of alternative interventions in the USA.

Findings

Despite the publication of thousands of papers addressing the social determinants of health, there is very little experimental and/or rigorous comparative research to guide researchers, policymakers, philanthropists, or other stakeholders on optimal strategies to improve health in communities. Comparative analysis, performed to determine what an alternative intervention or policy would have accomplished, and opportunity costs and unintended consequences are rarely considered.

Conclusions

If scholars and activists truly believe that improvements must address the social determinants of health, it is time for a more concerted effort to determine what works, when and where, and what the opportunity costs relative to plausible alternatives are. While usually expensive, occasionally ethically challenged, and occasionally infeasible, (cluster randomized) experiments remain critical to understanding what works and where. Social epidemiologists must be better positioned to offer guidance in this regard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Oakes JM. The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1929–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oakes M, Andrade KE, Biyoow IM, Cowan LT. Twenty years of neighborhood effect research: an assessment. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2015:1–8.

  3. Currie J, Rossin-Slater M. Early-life origins of life-cycle well-being: research and policy implications. J Policy Anal Manage. 2014;34:208–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Galea S. An argument for consequentialist epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178:1185–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nandi A, Harper S. How consequential is social epidemiology? A review of recent evidence. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014:1–10.

  6. Berk R. Evidence-based versus junk-based evaluation research some lessons from 35 years of the evaluation review. Eval Rev. 2011;35:191–203. The author of this paper is an internationally recognized expert in social program evaluation (and applied statistics) with decades of experience. This paper considers substantive and methodological strength and weaknesses of social program evaluation and we think it useful for social epidemiologists.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Social determinants of health—healthy people. 2014, September 18, 2014. Available: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39.

  8. Imbens G, Wooldridge J. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit. 2009;47:5–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nathan R, Hollister Jr R. The role of random assignment in social policy research. J Policy Anal Manage. 2008;27:401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanson-Fisher R, Bonevski B, Green L, D’Este C. Limitations of the randomized controlled trial in evaluating population-based health interventions. J Prev Med. 2007;33:155–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. D. Greenberg and B. S. Barnow. Flaws in evaluations of social programs illustrations from randomized controlled trials. Eval Rev. 2014:0193841X14545782.

  12. Hannan PJ. Experimental social epidemiology: controlled community trials in Methods in social epidemiology, J. M. Oakes and J. S. Kaufman, Eds., ed San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley. 2006:335–364.

  13. Brown M, Bindman A, Lurie N. Monitoring the consequences of uninsurance: a review of methodologies. Med Care Res Rev. 1998;55:177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hadley J. Sicker and poorer—the consequences of being uninsured: a review of the research on the relationship between health insurance, medical care use, health, work, and income. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60:3S–75S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Institute of Medicine. Care without coverage. National Academies Press, Washington, DC 2002.

  16. Brook R, Ware J, Rogers W, Keeler E, Davies A, Donald C, et al. Does free care improve adults’ health? Results from a randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1426–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Levy H, Meltzer D. The impact of health insurance on health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:399–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sommers B, Long S, Baicker K. Changes in mortality after Massachusetts health care reform: a quasi-experimental study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:585–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Loehrer A, Hawkins A, Auchincloss H, Song Z, Hutter M, Patel V. Impact of expanded insurance coverage on racial disparities in vascular disease. Annals Surg. 2015

  20. Finkelstein A, Taubman S, Wright B, Bernstein M, Gruber J, Newhouse J, et al. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: evidence from the first year. Q J Econ. 2012;127:1057–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Baicker K, Taubman S, Allen H, Bernstein M, Gruber J, Newhouse J, et al. The Oregon experiment—effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1713–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Kates, R. Garfield, K. Young, K. Quinn, E. Frazier, and J. Skarbinski, Assessing the impact of the affordable care act on health insurance coverage of people with HIV. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2014.

  23. Martin AB, Hartman M, Whittle L, Catlin A, the National Health Expenditure Accounts Team, National Health Spending In 2012: rate of health spending growth remained low for the fourth consecutive year. Health Aff. 2014;33:67–77.

  24. Anderson A. The impact of the affordable care act on the health care workforce. The Heritage Foundation. 2014.

  25. Aaron H, Burtless G. Title, unpublished|.

  26. Hill SC, Abdus S, Hudson JL, Selden TM. Adults in the income range for the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion are healthier than pre-ACA enrollees. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:691–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for High Blood Pressure: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement. AHRQ, Ann Intern Med. 2007.

  28. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for and management of obesity in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012.

  29. Hoyert DL, Xu J. Deaths: preliminary data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012;61:1–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: breast cancer: screening. 2015, November 30, 2015. Available: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementDraft/breast-cancer-screening1.

  31. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. 2012, August 27, 2014. Available: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf11/cervcancer/cervcancerrs.htm.

  32. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: final recommendation statement. 2012, August 27, 2014. Available: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening/prostatefinalrs.htm.

  33. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for testicular cancer: recommendation statement. 2004, August 27, 2014. Available: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/3rduspstf/testicular/testiculrs.htm.

  34. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. 2013, August 27, 2014. Available: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf13/lungcan/lungcanfinalrs.htm

  35. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. 2008, August 27, 2014. Available: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf08/colocancer/colors.htm

  36. Worthington H, Clarkson J, Bryan G, Beirne P. Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2013. Cochrane collaboration review papers are widely viewed as rigorous and critical to understanding research on any give issue. This paper reviews evidence about what some would call routine dental work and illuminates the debatable impact of such care

  37. Dye B, Tan S, Smith V, Lewis B, Barker L, Thornton-Evans G, et al. Trends in oral health status: United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. National Center for Health Statistics. 2007.

  38. Moyer V. Prevention of dental caries in children from birth through age 5 years: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2014;133:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Olds D, Kitzman H, Knudtson M, Anson E, Smith J, Cole R. Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:800–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Olds D, Holmberg J, Donelan-McCall N, Luckey D, Knudtson M, Robinson J. Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses on children: follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:114–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bloom D, Miller C, Azurdia G. Results of the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) program in New York City. Administration for Children and Families. 2007

  42. Gormley Jr W. Early childhood care and education: lessons and puzzles. J Policy Anal Manage. 2007;26:633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Puma M, Bell S, Cook R, Heid C, Lopez M. Head Start impact study: first year findings. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, DC. 2005.

  44. Puma M, Bell S, Cook R, Heid C, Broene P, Jenkins F, et al. Third grade follow-up to the Head Start impact study final report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, DC. 2012.

  45. Muennig P, Schweinhart L, Montie J, Neidell M. Effects of a prekindergarten educational intervention on adult health: 37-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial. AJPH. 2009;99:1431–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Heckman J, Moon S, Pinto R, Savelyev P, Yavitz A. The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. J Public Econ. 2010;94:114–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Olsen D. Understanding the promise of universal preschool, in Early childhood programs for a new century, A. J. Reynolds, M. C. Wang, and H. J. Walberg, Eds., ed Washington, DC: CWLA Press. 2003:329–352.

  48. Campbell F, Conti G, Heckman J, Moon S, Pinto R, Pungello E, et al. Early childhood investments substantially boost adult health. Science. 2014;343:1478–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Goodson B, Layzer J, St Pierre R, Bernstein L, and Lopez M, “Effectiveness of a comprehensive, five-year family support program for low-income children and their families: findings from the comprehensive child development program,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000;15:5–39.

  50. D’Onise K, Lynch J, Sawyer M, McDermott R. Can preschool improve child health outcomes? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1423–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Heckman J. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science. 2006;312:1900–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. The White House. Fact Sheet President Obama’s Plan for Early Education for all Americans. 2013, August 27, 2014. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/13/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-plan-early-education-all-americans

  53. Jacobs D, Brown M, Baeder A, Sucosky M, Margolis S, Hershovitz J, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction, methods, and summary findings. J Pub Health Manage Pract. 2010;16:S5–S10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Acevedo-Garcia D, Osypuk T, Werbel R, Meara E, Cutler D, Berkman L. Does housing mobility policy improve health? Housing Policy Debate. 2004;15:49–98. The authors of this paper are leading social epidemiologists. This article summarizes the empirical evidence for the effect of housing mobility policies on health outcomes, and finds few rigorous studies on which to rely.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sanbonmatsu L, Ludwig J, Katz L, Gennetian L, Duncan G, Kessler R, et al. Executive summary: the moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program final impacts evaluation. 2012

  56. Garfinkel I, McLanahan S, Tienda M, Brooks-Gunn J. Fragile families and welfare reform: an introduction. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2001;23:277–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Osypuk T, Tchetgen Tchetgen T, Acevedo-Garcia D, Earls F, Lincoln A, Schmidt N, et al. Differential mental health effects of neighborhood relocation among youth in vulnerable families. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69:1284–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Osypuk T, Joshi P, Geronimo K, Acevedo-Garcia D. Do social and economic policies influence health? A review. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014;1:149–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Jackson L, Langille L, Lyons R, Hughes J, Martine D, Winstanley V. Does moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood improve mental health? A realist review of ‘moving to opportunity’. Health Place. 2009;15:961–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Fortson J, Sanbonmatsu L. Child health and neighborhood conditions: results from a randomized housing voucher experiment. J Hum Resour. 2010;45:840–64.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kessler R, Duncan G, Gennetian L, Katz L, Kling J, Sampson N, et al. Associations of housing mobility interventions for children in high-poverty neighborhoods with subsequent mental disorders during adolescence. J Am Med Assoc. 2014;311:937–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Jackson R. The impact of the built environment on health: an emerging field. AJPH. 2003;93:1382–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ferdinand A, Sen B, Rahurkar S, Engler S, Menachemi N. The relationship between built environments and physical activity: a systematic review. AJPH. 2012;102:e7–e13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. McCormack G, Shiell A. In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Feng J, Glass T, Curriero F, Stewart W, Schwartz B. The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Health Place. 2010;16:175–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ding D, Gebel K. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: what have we learned from reviewing the literature? Health Place. 2012;18:100–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Acevedo-Garcia D, Osypuk T, McArdle N, Williams D. Toward a policy-relevant analysis of geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in child health. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:321–33.

  68. Rossi PH. The presidential address: the challenge and opportunities of applied social research. Am Sociol Rev. 1980;45:889–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA

    J. Michael Oakes, Erika L. Fuchs, Allan D. Tate, Dylan L. Galos & Ifrah M. Biyoow

Authors
  1. J. Michael Oakes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erika L. Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan D. Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dylan L. Galos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ifrah M. Biyoow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Michael Oakes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

J. Michael Oakes, Erika L. Fuchs, Allan D. Tate, Dylan L. Galos, and Ifrah M. Biyoow declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Social Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oakes, J.M., Fuchs, E.L., Tate, A.D. et al. How Should We Improve Neighborhood Health? Evaluating Evidence from a Social Determinant Perspective. Curr Epidemiol Rep 3, 106–112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-016-0072-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-016-0072-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation