Context Epidemiologists and public health researchers are studying neighborhood’s effect on individual health. The health of older adults may be more influenced by their neighborhoods as a result of decreased mobility. However, research on neighborhood’s influence on older adults’ health, specifically, is limited. Evidence acquisition Recent studies on neighborhood and health for older adults were identified. Studies were identified through searches databases including PsychINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Ageline, Social Science Citation Index, and Health Source. Criteria for inclusion were: human studies; English language; study sample included adults aged ≥55 years; health outcomes including mental health, health behaviors, morbidity, and mortality; neighborhood as the primary exposure variable of interest; empirical research; and studies that included >=10 neighborhoods. Air pollution studies were excluded. Five hundred thirty-eight relevant articles were published 1997–2007; 33 of these articles met inclusion criteria. Evidence synthesis The measures of objective and perceived aspects of neighborhood were summarized. Neighborhood was primarily operationalized using census-defined boundaries. Measures of neighborhood were principally derived from objective sources of data; eight studies assessed perceived neighborhood alone or in combination with objective measures. Six categories of neighborhood characteristics were socioeconomic composition, racial composition, demographics, perceived resources and/or problems, physical environment, and social environment. The studies are primarily cross-sectional and use administrative data to characterize neighborhood. Conclusions These studies suggest that neighborhood environment is important for older adults’ health and functioning.

Despite the advances of modern epidemiology, the field remains limited in its ability to explain why certain outcomes occur and to generate the kind of findings that can be translated into programmes or policies to improve health. Creating community partnerships such that community representatives participate in the definition of the research problem, interpretation of the data, and application of the findings may help address these concerns. Community based participatory research (CBPR) is a framework epidemiologists can apply to their studies to gain a better understanding of the social context in which disease outcomes occur, while involving community partners in the research process, and insuring that action is part of the research process itself. The utility of CBPR principles has been particularly well demonstrated by environmental epidemiologists who have employed this approach in data gathering on exposure assessment and advancing environmental justice. This article provides examples of how popular epidemiology applies many of CBPR's key principles. At this critical juncture in its history, epidemiology may benefit from further incorporating CBPR, increasing the field's ability to study and understand complex community health problems, insure the policy and practice relevance of findings, and assist in using those findings to help promote structural changes that can improve health and prevent disease.

The environment can be thought of in terms of physical and social dimensions. The social environment includes the groups to which we belong, the neighborhoods in which we live, the organization of our workplaces, and the policies we create to order our lives. There have been recent reports in the literature that the social environment is associated with disease and mortality risks, independent of individual risk factors. These findings suggest that the social environment influences disease pathways. Yet much remains to be learned about the social environment, including how to understand, define, and measure it. The research that needs to be done could benefit from a long tradition in sociology and sociological research that has examined the urban environment, social areas, social disorganization, and social control. We summarize this sociological literature and discuss its relevance to epidemiologic research.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined associations between income inequality and mortality in 282 US metropolitan areas. METHODS: Income inequality measures were calculated from the 1990 US Census. Mortality was calculated from National Center for Health Statistics data and modeled with weighted linear regressions of the log age-adjusted rate. RESULTS: Excess mortality between metropolitan areas with high and low income inequality ranged from 64.7 to 95.8 deaths per 100,000 depending on the inequality measure. In age-specific analyses, income inequality was most evident for infant mortality and for mortality between ages 15 and 64. CONCLUSIONS: Higher income inequality is associated with increased mortality at all per capita income levels. Areas with high income inequality and low average income had excess mortality of 139.8 deaths per 100,000 compared with areas with low inequality and high income. The magnitude of this mortality difference is comparable to the combined loss of life from lung cancer, diabetes, motor vehicle crashes, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, suicide, and homicide in 1995. Given the mortality burden associated with income inequality, public and private sector initiatives to reduce economic inequalities should be a high priority.

Neighborhood social and built environments have been recognized as important contexts in which health is shaped. We review the extent to which these neighborhood factors have been addressed in population-level cancer research, with a scan of the literature for research that focuses on specific social and/or built environment characteristics and association with outcomes across the cancer continuum, including incidence, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and survival. We discuss commonalities and differences in methodologies across studies, current challenges in research methodology, and future directions in this research area. The assessment of social and built environment factors in relation to cancer is a relatively new field, with 82% of 34 reviewed papers published since 2010. Across the wide range of social and built environment exposures and cancer outcomes considered by the studies, numerous associations were reported. However, the directions and magnitudes of association varied, due in large part to the variation in cancer sites and outcomes being studied, but also likely due to differences in study populations, geographical region, and, importantly, choice of neighborhood measure and geographic scale. We recommend that future studies consider the life course implications of cancer incidence and survival, integrate secondary and self-report data, consider work neighborhood environments, and further develop analytical and statistical approaches appropriate to the geospatial and multilevel nature of the data. Incorporating social and built environment factors into research on cancer etiology and outcomes can provide insights into disease processes, identify vulnerable populations, and generate results with translational impact of relevance for interventionists and policy makers.