Perceived neighborhood social cohesion moderates the relationship between neighborhood structural disadvantage and adolescent depressive symptoms

Abstract

There is a dearth of research exploring the moderating role of the social environment on neighborhood structural disadvantage and depressive symptoms, particularly among adolescents. Therefore, we examined if adolescent perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and safety moderated the association between neighborhood structural disadvantage and adolescent depressive symptoms. This cross-sectional study used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). The study sample consisted of 12,105 adolescents enrolled in 9th-12th grades during the 1994-1995 school year across the United States (U.S.). Mixed effects multilevel modeling was used to determine if adolescent perceptions of neighborhoods moderated the relationship between neighborhood structural disadvantage and adolescent depressive symptoms. Results showed that perceived neighborhood social cohesion moderated the relationship between neighborhood structural disadvantage and adolescent depressive symptoms (p≤0.001). At higher levels of perceived neighborhood social cohesion, neighborhood structural disadvantage was associated with decreased depressive symptoms. Findings suggest that improving perceived neighborhood social cohesion may decrease adolescent depressive symptoms, particularly in neighborhoods with high disadvantage. This aspect of the neighborhood social environment may serve as a target for structural and other interventions to address the growing burden of depression among adolescents.

Neighborhood environment, social cohesion, and epigenetic aging

“…Our findings are consistent with previous research linking neighborhood disadvantage to accelerated DNAm aging in children and adults (22,27). In our study, we found that women's DNAm aging was more sensitive to neighborhood poverty and Neighborhood social cohesion has also been shown to affect physical and mental health outcomes and may have effects at the molecular levels (16,(30)(31)(32)(33). In a study of 1,226 adults in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), the neighborhood social environment, measured as a summary score that included social cohesion, was associated with DNAm in stress-and inflammation-related genes (16).…”

“…Positive aspects of the neighborhood, such as perception of neighborhood social cohesion, may act to buffer the effects of an adverse neighborhood environment on DNAm aging, as found in studies relating neighborhoods to health (30)(31)(32)(33). Accordingly, our study sought to investigate both the independent and joint impacts of neighborhood quality and social cohesion on three measures of DNAm aging-Horvath's epigenetic clock, Hannum's epigenetic clock, and Levine's PhenoAge-among a sample of predominately Black adults living in Detroit, MI (23)(24)(25).…”

Multiple vulnerabilities: The effects of neighborhood structural changes upon older residents' mental health and perceptions of the broader community

“…Much scholarship over the past two decades emphasizes the consequentiality of neighborhoods for their residents' physical, mental, and social well-being (e.g., Blair et al, 2014;Dawson et al, 2019;Kim & Ross, 2009;Matheson et al, 2006;Van Eijk, 2010). In particular, neighborhood social cohesion, trust, and support are important influences upon health and quality of life (Cramm et al, 2013;Feldman & Oberlink, 2003;Putnam, 2001).…”

“…In particular, neighborhood social cohesion, trust, and support are important influences upon health and quality of life (Cramm et al, 2013;Feldman & Oberlink, 2003;Putnam, 2001). Dawson et al (2019), for example, show through cross-sectional analyses the significant and complex relationships between adolescents' depressive symptoms and neighborhood structural disadvantage, safety, and social cohesion.…”

“…Through this community resource, residents can unite to collectively address their shared problems and realize their common goals (Putnam, 2001). Some scholars argue that communities in worse socioeconomic circumstances tend to be those with less effective cohesion and collective mobilization (e.g., Ansari, 2013;Bursik, 1988;Dawson et al, 2019;Putnam, 2001;Sampson & Groves, 1989). Conversely, Stack's (1974) ethnography of a disadvantaged American urban neighborhood revealed the extent to which challenging structural circumstances lead community residents to bind together and provide each other with needed instrumental and emotional support.…”