Dataset Information

Use of Geographic Information Systems to Explore Associations between Neighborhood Attributes and Mental Health Outcomes in Adults: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neighborhood attributes are increasingly recognized as factors shaping mental health in adults. Geographic information systems (GIS) offer an innovative approach for quantifying neighborhood attributes and studying their influence on mental health outcomes. Our aim was to describe GIS applications used in neighborhood-related mental health research and how neighborhood attributes are related to depressive symptoms or psychological distress in community-residing adults.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies published in English that included GIS techniques and a validated questionnaire of depressive symptoms or psychological distress. Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, GEOBASE, and Compedex were searched to June 2020. Study quality was assessed by a modification of the Joanna Briggs Institute's Checklist for Analytical Cross-sectional Studies.

Results

Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied in definitions of neighborhood and GIS-derived measurements of neighborhood attributes. Neighborhood attributes were significantly associated with mental health outcomes, although findings were not consistent. Moderating factors (e.g., gender, living conditions) significantly influenced depressive symptoms or psychological distress.

Conclusion

Neighborhood attributes are important factors influencing mental health in adults. Consensus may be needed on how to standardize the neighborhood unit or GIS-derived measures of neighborhoods in order to explain depression or psychological distress in diverse adult populations.

SUBMITTER: Park YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8393279 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization recommends strategies to improve urban design, public transportation, and recreation facilities to facilitate physical activity for non-communicable disease prevention for an increasingly urbanized global population. Most evidence supporting environmental associations with physical activity comes from single countries or regions with limited variation in urban form. This paper documents variation in comparable built environment features across countries from diverse regions. METHODS:The International Physical Activity and the Environment Network (IPEN) study of adults aimed to measure the full range of variation in the built environment using geographic information systems (GIS) across 12 countries on 5 continents. Investigators in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, China, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States followed a common research protocol to develop internationally comparable measures. Using detailed instructions, GIS-based measures included features such as walkability (i.e., residential density, street connectivity, mix of land uses), and access to public transit, parks, and private recreation facilities around each participant's residential address using 1-km and 500-m street network buffers. RESULTS:Eleven of 12 countries and 15 cities had objective GIS data on built environment features. We observed a 38-fold difference in median residential densities, a 5-fold difference in median intersection densities and an 18-fold difference in median park densities. Hong Kong had the highest and North Shore, New Zealand had the lowest median walkability index values, representing a difference of 9 standard deviations in GIS-measured walkability. CONCLUSIONS:Results show that comparable measures can be created across a range of cultural settings revealing profound global differences in urban form relevant to physical activity. These measures allow cities to be ranked more precisely than previously possible. The highly variable measures of urban form will be used to explain individuals' physical activity, sedentary behaviors, body mass index, and other health outcomes on an international basis. Present measures provide the ability to estimate dose-response relationships from projected changes to the built environment that would otherwise be impossible.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the impact of neighborhood context on family caregivers, or how environmental factors combine with individual-level caregiver risk factors to affect caregiver outcomes.ObjectivesTo combine Geographic Information System (GIS) and survey methods to examine the effects of caregiver residence in disadvantaged/underserved neighborhoods on caregiver outcomes.Research design and methodsTelephone surveys with 758 caregivers from the Pittsburgh Regional Caregiver Survey geocoded for classification into Environmental Justice Areas (EJAs) and Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs). We examine the impact of EJA/MUA caregiver residence on care recipient unmet needs for care, caregiver depression and burden, and positive aspects of caregiving, adjusting for sociodemographics, caregiving context, care recipient disability level, caregiving intensity, and additional risk factors.ResultsThere was spatial clustering of caregiver depression and burden outside of the disadvantaged/underserved areas, while positive aspects of caregiving were clustered within EJAs/MUAs. Approximately 36% of caregivers lived in EJAs/MUAs, and they differed, sociodemographically, on caregiver risk factors and caregiver outcomes. Multivariable models showed that caregivers residing in EJAs/MUAs were less likely to be depressed and reported more positive aspects of caregiving after adjusting for known individual-level risk factors. Residence in disadvantaged/underserved areas also modified the effects of several risk factors on caregiver outcomes.Discussion and implicationsCaregiver outcomes show interesting spatial patterns. Unexpectedly, caregivers living in these potentially challenging environments were less depressed and reported more gains from caregiving after adjusting for known risk factors. Results suggest that socioeconomic disadvantage does not necessarily translate into poor caregiver outcomes. Understanding the mechanism for these effects is important to designing effective caregiver interventions. The paper also demonstrates the value of using GIS methods to study caregiving.