Despite growing attention to the problem of obesogenic environments, there has not been a comprehensive review evaluating the food environment-diet relationship. This study aims to evaluate this relationship in the current literature, focusing specifically on the method of exposure assessment (GIS, survey, or store audit). This study also explores 5 dimensions of “food access” (availability, accessibility, affordability, accommodation, acceptability) using a conceptual definition proposed by Penchansky and Thomas (1981). Articles were retrieved through a systematic keyword search in Web of Science and supplemented by the reference lists of included studies. Thirty-eight studies were reviewed and categorized by the exposure assessment method and the conceptual dimensions of access it captured. GIS-based measures were the most common measures, but were less consistently associated with diet than other measures. Few studies examined dimensions of affordability, accommodation, and acceptability. Because GIS-based measures on their own may not capture important non-geographic dimensions of access, a set of recommendations for future researchers is outlined.

Neighborhood effects on health research has grown over the past 20 years. While the substantive findings of this literature have been published in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and commentaries, operational details of the research have been understudied. We identified 7,140 multi-level neighborhoods and health papers published on US populations between 1995–2014, and present data on the study characteristics of the 259 papers that met our inclusion criteria. Our results reveal rapid growth in neighborhoods and health research in the mid-2000s, illustrate the dominance of observational cross-sectional study designs, and show a heavy reliance on single-level, census-based neighborhood definitions. Socioeconomic indicators were the most commonly analyzed neighborhood variables and body mass was the most commonly studied health outcome. Well-known challenges associated with neighborhood effects research were infrequently acknowledged. We discuss how these results move the agenda forward for neighborhoods and health research.

Abstract"Neighborhoods and health" research has shown that area social factors are associated with the health outcomes that patients with cancer experience across the cancer control continuum. To date, most of this research has been focused on the attributes of urban areas that are associated with residents' poor cancer outcomes with less focused on attributes of rural areas that may be associated with the same. Perhaps because there is not yet a consensus in the United States regarding how to define "rural," there is not yet an accepted analytic convention for studying issues of how patients' cancer outcomes may vary according to "rural" as a contextual attribute. The research that exists reports disparate findings and generally treats rural residence as a patient attribute rather than a contextual factor, making it difficult to understand what factors (e.g., unmeasured individual poverty, area social deprivation, area health care scarcity) may be mediating the poor outcomes associated with rural (or non-rural) residence. Here, we review literature regarding the potential importance of rural residence on cancer patients' outcomes in the United States with an eye towards identifying research conventions (i.e., spatial and analytic) that may be useful for future research in this important area. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(10); 1657-67. Ó2013 AACR.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Lower community social capital was associated with higher incidence of onset of functional disability among older women but not among men. Community-based interventions to promote social capital may be useful for preventing functional disability of older Japanese women.

We sought to investigate prospectively the association between exposure to disaster (the 2011 East Japan Earthquake) and change in depressive symptoms among community-dwelling older adult survivors. We used two waves of data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES), an ongoing population-based, prospective cohort study in Japan. A unique feature of our study was the availability of information about mental health status pre-dating the disaster. Our sample comprised community-dwelling survivors aged 65 and older, who responded to surveys in 2010 (i.e. one year before the disaster) and in 2013 (n= 3,464). We categorized disaster exposure according to three types of experiences: loss of family/friends, property damage, and disruption in access to medical service. Our main outcome was change in depressive symptoms, measured by the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS). Among the participants, 917(26.5%) reported losing a family member to the disaster, while a further 537(15.5%) reported losing a friend. More than half of the participants reported some damage to their homes. After adjusting for demographics and baseline mental health, people whose homes were completely destroyed had significantly elevated depressive symptom scores three years later (+1.22 points, 95%CI: 0.80, 1.64, p<.0001). Disruption of psychiatric care was also associated with change in GDS scores (+2.51 points, 95%CI: 1.28, 3.74, p<.0001). By contrast, loss of family/friends was no longer associated with GDS after 3 years; +0.18 points (95%CI: -0.018, 0.37, p=0.08) for loss of family, and −0.045 points (95%CI: -0.28, 0.19, p=0.71) for loss of friends. Three years after the disaster, survivors of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami appeared to have recovered from loss of loved ones. By contrast, property loss and disruption of psychiatry care were associated with persistent adverse impact on mental health.