BMC Public Health (Oct 2022)

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

  • Akilah J. Dulin,
  • Jee Won Park,
  • Matthew M. Scarpaci,
  • Laura A. Dionne,
  • Mario Sims,
  • Belinda L. Needham,
  • Joseph L. Fava,
  • Charles B. Eaton,
  • Alka M. Kanaya,
  • Namratha R. Kandula,
  • Eric B. Loucks,
  • Chanelle J. Howe

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14270-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.

Keywords