PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
J Epidemiol Community Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jan 29, 2014.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3905357
NIHMSID: NIHMS548030
Comparison of individual-level versus area-level socioeconomic measures in assessing health outcomes of children in Olmsted County, Minnesota
Maria R Pardo-Crespo,1,7 Nirmala Priya Narla,2 Arthur R Williams,3 Timothy J Beebe,4 Jeff Sloan,4 Barbara P Yawn,5 Philip H Wheeler,6 and Young J Juhn1
1Division of Community Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
2Mayo Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
3Department of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
4Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
5Department of Research, Olmsted Medical Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
6Rochester Olmsted Planning Department, Olmsted County, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
7Servicio Cantabro de Salud, Santander, Cantabria, Spain
Correspondence to: Dr Young J Juhn, Division of Community Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; juhn.young/at/mayo.edu
Background
Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important determinant of health, but SES measures are frequently unavailable in commonly used datasets. Area-level SES measures are used as proxy measures of individual SES when the individual measures are lacking. Little is known about the agreement between individual-level versus area-level SES measures in mixed urban–rural settings.
Methods
We identified SES agreement by comparing information from telephone self-reported SES levels and SES calculated from area-level SES measures. We assessed the impact of this agreement on reported associations between SES and rates of childhood obesity, low birth weight <2500 g and smoking within the household in a mixed urban–rural setting.
Results
750 households were surveyed with a response rate of 62%: 51% male, 89% Caucasian; mean child age 9.5 years. Individual-level self-reported income was more strongly associated with all three childhood health outcomes compared to area-level SES. We found significant disagreement rates of 22–31%. The weighted Cohen’s κ indices ranged from 0.15 to 0.22, suggesting poor agreement between individual-level and area-level measures.
Conclusion
In a mixed urban–rural setting comprised of both rural and urbanised areas, area-level SES proxy measures significantly disagree with individual SES measures, and have different patterns of association with health outcomes from individual-level SES measures. Area-level SES may be an unsuitable proxy for SES when individual rather than community characteristics are of primary concern.
Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important determinant of health in adults and children, and this association has been widely documented in both developed and developing countries.17 Currently, the influences of SES on health through interactions with biological mechanisms have drawn scientific attention.810
Despite the importance of SES in relation to human health, SES is difficult to obtain and is frequently absent in the commonly used datasets such as medical records, disease registries and administrative datasets.11 For example, a recent study analysing cost and hospitalisations among children with asthma based their conclusions on socioeconomic data derived from area-level zip codes SES, despite significant confounding because individual socioeconomic data were unavailable.12 In a population-based case–control study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, we found that SES measures were unavailable for 70% of study subjects.13 Absence of socioeconomic data has been a major barrier in advancing our understanding about the role of SES in health.
To overcome the absence of individual-level SES measures, area-level SES measures based on the census data at the census block group, or census tract levels have been widely used as proxies for the former.14,15 However, despite this common approach, there have been concerns that area-level SES measures may not be a suitable proxy for individual-level SES because of potential disagreement and contextual effects of neighbourhood environments on health outcomes independent of individual SES. While some studies assessed either agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures1519 or the relationship between health outcomes and individual-level versus area-level SES,2025 few studies examined both agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures and their relationship with health outcomes.26 In addition, no previous studies have specifically focused on childhood health outcomes and assessed agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures using multiple SES measures. Moreover, it is unknown as to whether individual-level versus area-level SES measures are correlated in mixed urban–rural settings with relative ethnic and socioeconomic homogeneity in the USA. In metropolitan areas (urban setting), residents with lower SES tend to live in homogeneous inner city enclaves with lower neighbourhood SES and, thus census-based neighbourhood SES measure could be a proxy measure for individual SES.27 In contrast, the mixed urban–rural settings such as Olmsted County may not have such distinct enclaves but have a greater heterogeneity of individual SES measures within neighbourhoods leading to a greater misclassification of one’s socioeconomic position.28 To address the limitations of previous studies, we conducted a cross-sectional study using a population-based sampling frame to determine the degree of agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures in Olmsted County. Also, we compared the association of individual-level versus area-level SES measures with health outcomes among children.
This study was reviewed and approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. The details of the study methods have been reported previously.29
Study setting and population
The study subjects were a random sample of caregivers of children ages 1–17 years in Olmsted County. Details have been described previously.29 Olmsted County is located 90 miles southeast of Minneapolis. According to the 2000 census, the population of Olmsted County, was 124 277; 90.3% white compared to 89.4% in Minnesota and 75.1% in the USA. With the exception of a higher proportion of the working population employed in the healthcare industry, characteristics of Olmsted County populations were similar to those of the US white population. Olmsted County is relatively less segregated geographically and demographically compared to larger metropolitan areas. The dissimilarity index measuring the degree of uniformity of demographic factors of the community calculated by race for white versus other minority groups in the Rochester metropolitan statistical area (MSA) was 36.8 in 2000, ranking 265 of 331 metropolitan areas; lower ranking suggests more racial/ socioeconomic homogeneity.30
Study design
The study employed a cross-sectional design with telephone interviews. We determined agreement between individual-level versus area-level SES derived from census block-group level and associations of individual-level and area-level SES with health outcomes.
Data collection
Individual-level SES and parent-reported health outcomes for their children were collected by administering telephone interviews to caregivers. We adopted the 2002 National Health Interview Survey questionnaire for the telephone Interview.31 The individual-level SES was measured by parents’ highest education level and annual family income. Health outcomes for children to be assessed were low birth weight (<2500 g of birth weight), overweight (≥95% of body mass index for age and gender of children) and tobacco smoking status of household members. Area-level SES measures were collected from the 2000 census data. We collected the percentage of people with a bachelor degree or higher education and median family income at a census block-group level.
Data analysis
We categorised individual education levels into four categories (high-school graduate or below; some college without degree; associate/college degree; graduate or professional degree) and individual income in five categories (<$49 999; $50 000–$74 999; $75 000–$99 999; $100 000–$149 999; >$150 000). Area-level SES measures were categorised into four quartile groups according to the percentage of people with bachelor degree or higher educational level in the block group and to the percentage of people with a median family income equal to $62 255 or higher in census block group. We considered first and second strata (below median) as low SES groups and third and fourth strata (above median) as high SES on area-level data. We cross-tabulated individual-level and area-level SES measures to descriptively show the misclassification of individual-level SES measures (tables 1 and and2).2). In order to determine concordance between individual-level and area-level SES measures, we calculated weighted Cohen’s κ indexes using the categories of individual-level and area-level SES measures as described above (table 3). To compare the associations of individual-level versus area-level SES measures with health outcomes captured by binary variables, low birth weight, overweight and household smoking exposure data were fitted to logistic regression models to calculate ORs and 95% CIs. All tests of statistical significance used a two-sided α error of 0.05. All analysis was conducted using Stata V.11.2 Stata Corp, Texas, USA.
Table 1
Table 1
Agreement between individual-level versus area-level education measures
Table 2
Table 2
Agreement between individual-level versus area-level income measures
Table 3
Table 3
Concordance between area-level and individual-level SES by weighted Cohen’s κ coefficient
Characteristics of subjects
The survey response rate was 62% (750/1209) in Olmsted County. After eliminating respondents with missing data, the final study cohort consisted of 746 respondents. More than 75% of the adult respondents were women, and 89% of the subjects were white (median age, 41 years). The sociodemographic characteristics of the study subjects’ children were previously reported.29 Overall, except for gender, the sociodemographic characteristics of the study subjects were similar to Olmsted County population as a whole.
Descriptive summary of agreement of individual-level SES measure
The number and percentages of cases in agreement and disagreement between individual-level and aggregate-level measures are seen in tables 1 and and2.2. Of 196 caregivers who had not completed a bachelor degree, 50 (26%) were classified as a high SES group-based area-level data. Of 550 caregivers who had completed a college degree or above, 103 (19%) were classified as being a low SES group based on area-level data. Similarly, of the 148 care-givers in the highest-income group (>$150 000), 46 (31%) were classified as a low SES group based on area-level data. Of the 108 caregivers in the lowest income group (<$49 999), 29 (27%) were classified as a high SES group at a census block-group level.
Concordance between individual-level versus area-level SES measures
The weighted Cohen’s κ coefficients indicating the concordance between individual-level and area-level education and income measures are shown in table 3. All κ index values ranged from 0.14 to 0.20, which were below 0.40, suggesting poor agreement.32
Comparisons of associations of individual-level versus area-level SES measures with health outcomes
As indicated in table 4, while individual-level income was strongly associated with risk of low birth weight, area-level income measure was not. Also, area-level SES was not associated with a risk of being overweight, except in the highest SES group. Both individual-level and area-level incomes were associated with household smoking exposure, although area-level income showed weaker associations than individual-level measures. Similarly, both individual-level and area-level educational measures were associated with risk of household smoking exposure, although area-level educational measures had a weaker association with risk of household smoking exposure than individual-level measures. However, neither individual-level nor area-level educational measures were associated with the risk of being either overweight or having low birth weight (table 4).
Table 4
Table 4
Logistic regression models for the association between individual-level and area-level measures of SES and the risk of being overweight, having low birth weight or smoking exposure status at home among children from Olmsted County, Minnesota
Our study findings suggest a significant disagreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures. The poor agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures was found equally in both lower and higher SES groups. Overall, area-level SES measures had different patterns of association with health outcomes from individual-level SES measures.
In our study setting there is a relatively heterogeneous distribution of people in terms of race, employment opportunities, etc within geographic boundaries. Thus, area-level measures of SES may not be suitable proxy measures for individual SES, which can be quite heterogeneous within these boundaries. The weighted Cohen’s κ indices, indeed, suggest a poor agreement between area-level versus individual-level SES measures, ranging from 0.14 to 0.20 for education and 0.16 to 0.19 for income. As a result, significant proportions of individuals were misclassified (10–35% in education and 27–31% in income) as shown in tables 1 and and2.2. One also may attribute poor agreement of individual SES in our study to the unit of measure at aggregate levels. The census block-group level used in our study is the smallest geographic unit for which income and other SES data are published. SES or other attributes in the community including census block-level SES data is not publicly available. Typically, a block group contains between 600 and 3000 people with an optimum size of 1500 people33 as compared with census tracts, which typically have between 1500 and 8000 people, with an average size of about 4000 people.34 The census tract is the next higher aggregate level, and is commonly used for a measure of neighbourhood environment.35 Thus, given the census block group as the smallest unit of census SES data that is publicly available, census block group is likely to minimise within-group heterogeneity. In rural parts of Olmsted County, however, block groups can be over 80 square miles in area, introducing wide heterogeneity in what are conventionally considered ‘neighbourhoods’, resulting in a significant misclassification bias.
We postulate that poor agreement between area-level versus individual-level SES measures may result in different patterns of associations of individual-level and area-level SES measures with health outcomes. Indeed, while individual-level income was strongly associated with risk of low birth weight, area-level income measures were not. Compared to individual-level SES measures, area-level measures showed weaker associations with health outcomes. Geronimus et al,20 reported a weaker association between aggregate measures and health outcomes and suggested a careful application of aggregate measures as a proxy measure for individual SES.36 Similarly, a study comparing the effects of SES at individual-tract and census-tract or block-group levels on high blood pressure, height, smoking and number of full-term pregnancies showed that area-based socioeconomic indicators greatly underestimated the impact of SES on the outcomes.14 Also, the geographic unit used for area-level SES measures may not be a mere census-defined boundary sharing similar SES characteristics, but rather the unit may be a socially defined neighbourhood affecting the health of individuals along with individual SES.37,38 Thus, even if area-level SES measures were associated with risks of being low birth weight, overweight or smoking exposure in household, the associations could be attributed to an influence of neighbourhood environment, which could be difficult to disentangle from that of individual-level SES measures. For instance, O’Campo et al reported that the census tract-level variables modified the associations between the individual-level factors and the risk of low birth weight.3840 Similarly, Black and Macinko41 demonstrated that both individual and neighbourhood factors were independently associated with reduced obesity. Thus, neighbourhood or area-level factors themself can be an important contextual factor influencing health outcomes and should be considered in health studies independent of socioeconomic measures.
Previous studies have reported a substantial lack of agreement between individual-level and area-level information.1518,20,25,26 Similarly, Marra et al17 found poor agreement between individual-level and aggregate-level measures of income and education, and the weighted Cohen’s κ index ranged from 0.13 to 0.27. A recent study showed that individual-level and area-level SES measures have an average concordance rate 64–69%.17,1519,25,26 Also, few studies assessed the agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures in the context of health outcomes among children. Thus, our study is the first study based on a population-based sampling frame that examined the agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures and their relationships with childhood health outcomes in a mixed urban–rural setting.
Our study results have implications for research and public health. If the purpose of a study was to assess the role of SES in etiological pathways at an individual level, that is, generalising the findings to individuals, using area-level SES as a mere surrogate measure for individual SES may not be suitable without considering the study setting.
In mixed urban–rural settings, census areas or neighbourhoods can be relatively homogeneous in terms of the distribution of race, ethnicity, employment, etc across census areas or neighbourhoods, but have varying SES of individuals within neighbourhoods or small residential areas. In such instances, SES measured on the entire census area may considerably misrepresent the SES of individuals in a study. A clear example of such misrepresentation could occur within a large and relatively sparsely settled census area in which residents of differing SES are widely scattered.27,28 Area-level proxies have been used as control variables in studies analysing the influence of different risk factors on specific health outcomes. Recognising the importance of area-level SES measures, we make a few suggestions. First, area-level proxies need to be carefully utilised in health research depending on study settings. Second, given the potentially different, yet important, constructs for individual-level versus area-level SES, multilevel approaches taking into account both individual-level and area-level SES measures should be considered when formulating public health strategies or policy. Third, for those studies using area-level SES measures in health research (eg, secondary dataset), we suggest stratified analysis for the main results by study settings if dataset permits: (1) large MSA, (2) small MSA, (3) small urban non-MSA (urban–rural mixed area) and (4) the remaining rural areas to assess whether the results are consistent across different study settings.
Our study has a few limitations. Individual income, education and health outcomes were self-reported measures. Also, the survey respondents were primarily female caregivers, incurring the possibility of a non-differential misclassification bias with regard to the study results. Since our study was based on a telephone survey that interviewed ‘adult who is most knowledgeable about the health of the children in the home’, the majority of respondents were female caregivers who is unlikely to affect the relationship of individual SES with area-level SES and health outcomes. Another possible limitation is a discrepancy in the timing of measurement as area-level SES measure were derived from the 2000 US census, whereas an individual-level SES telephone survey was conducted in 2006. Although the response rate was only 62%, this is considered as an adequate rate for a telephone-administered survey of more than 5 min.42 In addition, the characteristics of non-respondent caregivers were likely to be randomly distributed.29
Despite limitations, our study has some strengths. Our study was a cross-sectional study using a population-based sampling frame, representative of families with children in the community. Olmsted County is an excellent setting in which to conduct some epidemiological studies because medical care is virtually self-contained within the community under the auspices of the Rochester Epidemiology Project.43 Lastly, we collected multiple measures of SES and health outcomes for analysis.
In conclusion, given the poor agreement between individual-level and area-level SES measures, different patterns of their associations with health outcomes and the potential influence of neighbourhood environment on health, area-level SES measurement may not be a suitable proxy measure of individual SES. Our results call for development of individual-level SES measures overcoming the absence of SES measures in commonly used datasets.
What is already known on this subject
  • Aggregate-level measures derived from census data have been frequently used as a proxy measure of individual SES when individual measures are lacking. Little is known about the agreement between aggregate-level and individual-level measures and potential difference in agreement between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.
What this study adds
  • The agreement between individual-level versus area-level SES measures is poor in a mixed urban–rural area. Area-level SES measures can potentially result in different patterns of associations with health outcomes in children from their individual-level SES measures.
Acknowledgments
We thank Denise Chase and Elizabeth Krusemark for administrative assistance and the staff of Pediatric Asthma Epidemiology Research Unit who made this study possible.
Funding This work was supported by a National Institutes of Health Grant R21HD51902 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. MRPC was supported by a grant of Fundación Marqués de Valdecilla-IFIMAV, Cantabria. Spain.
Footnotes
Contributors MRPC and YJJ participated in the study design, data analysis, interpreted the results and drafted the manuscript and NPN ARW, TJB, JS, PHW and BPY participated in the study design, interpreted the results, and reviewed the manuscript.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval The Mayo Clinic IRB.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
1. Lee DS, Chiu M, Manuel DG, et al. Trends in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Canada: temporal, socio-demographic and geographic factors. CMAJ. 2009;181:E55–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Kozyrskyj AL, Kendall GE, Jacoby P, et al. Association between socioeconomic status and the development of asthma: analyses of income trajectories. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:540–6. [PubMed]
3. Franks P, Gold MR, Fiscella K. Sociodemographics, self-rated health, and mortality in the US. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:2505–14. [PubMed]
4. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam AJ, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2468–81. [PubMed]
5. Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–104. [PubMed]
6. Chen E, Matthews KA, Boyce WT. Socioeconomic differences in children’s health: how and why do these relationships change with age? Psychol Bull. 2002;128:295–329. [PubMed]
7. Hosseinpoor AR, Itani L, Petersen PE. Socio-economic inequality in oral healthcare coverage: results from the World Health Survey. J Dent Res. 2012;91:275–81. [PubMed]
8. Adler NE, Newman K. Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Aff. 2002;21:60–76. [PubMed]
9. Tung J, Barreiro LB, Johnson ZP, et al. Social environment is associated with gene regulatory variation in the rhesus macaque immune system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:6490–5. [PubMed]
10. Rebbeck TR, Weber AL, Walker AH, et al. Context-dependent effects of genome-wide association study genotypes and macroenvironment on time to biochemical (prostate specific antigen) failure after prostatectomy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2115–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Liberatos P, Link BG, Kelsey JL. The measurement of social class in epidemiology. Epidemiol Rev. 1988;10:87–121. [PubMed]
12. Karaca-Mandic P, Jena AB, Joyce GF, et al. Out-of-pocket medication costs and use of medications and health care services among children with asthma. JAMA. 2012;307:1284–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Capili CR, Hettinger A, Rigelman-Hedberg N, et al. Increased risk of pertussis in patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;129:957–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:703–10. [PubMed]
15. Diez-Roux AV, Kiefe CI, Jacobs DR, Jr, et al. Area characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic position indicators in three population-based epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11:395–405. [PubMed]
16. Demissie K, Hanley JA, Menzies D, et al. Agreement in measuring socio-economic status: area-based versus individual measures. Chronic Dis Can. 2000;21:1–7. [PubMed]
17. Marra CA, Lynd LD, Harvard SS, et al. Agreement between aggregate and individual-level measures of income and education: a comparison across three patient groups. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:69. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Marengo L, Ramadhani T, Farag NH, et al. Should aggregate US Census data be used as a proxy for individual household income in a birth defects registry? J Registry Manag. 2011;38:9–14. [PubMed]
19. Roblin DW. Validation of a neighborhood SES index in a managed care organization. Med Care. 2013;51:e1–8. [PubMed]
20. Geronimus AT, Bound J. Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148:475–86. [PubMed]
21. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Choosing area based socioeconomic measures to monitor social inequalities in low birth weight and childhood lead poisoning: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project (US) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:186–99. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Dominguez-Berjon F, Borrell C, Rodriguez-Sanz M, et al. The usefulness of area-based socioeconomic measures to monitor social inequalities in health in Southern Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2006;16:54–61. [PubMed]
23. Subramanian SV, Chen JT, Rehkopf DH, et al. Comparing individual- and area-based socioeconomic measures for the surveillance of health disparities: a multilevel analysis of Massachusetts births, 1989–1991. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:823–34. [PubMed]
24. Haneuse S, Bartell S. Designs for the combination of group- and individual-level data. Epidemiology. 2011;22:382–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Rehkopf DH, Haughton LT, Chen JT, et al. Monitoring socioeconomic disparities in death: comparing individual-level education and area-based socioeconomic measures. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:2135–8. [PubMed]
26. Southern DA, McLaren L, Hawe P, et al. Individual-level and neighborhood-level income measures: agreement and association with outcomes in a cardiac disease cohort. Med Care. 2005;43:1116–22. [PubMed]
27. Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Pamuk ER, et al. Income inequality and mortality in metropolitan areas of the United States. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1074–80. [PubMed]
28. Sin DD, Svenson LW, Man SF. Do area-based markers of poverty accurately measure personal poverty? Can J Public Health. 2001;92:184–7. [PubMed]
29. Juhn YJ, Beebe TJ, Finnie DM, et al. Development and initial testing of a new socioeconomic status measure based on housing data. J Urban Health. 2011;88:933–44. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research. Segregation of Whole Population, Census 2000 Data. SUNY; Albany: [Accessed May 2012.]. http://mumford.albany.edu/census.
31. National Center for Health Statistics and Center for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed Sep 2004.];National Health Interview Survey. 2002 ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Survey_Questionnaires/NHIS/2002.
32. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley and Sons; 1981.
33. The US Census Bureau, Census block groups 2000. US Census Bureau Geography Division; Washington DC: 2000.
34. The US Census Bureau. Cenus Tracts and Block Numbering Areas, 2000. US Census Bureau Geography Division; Washington DC: 2000.
35. Juhn YJ, Qin R, Urm S, et al. The influence of neighborhood environment on the incidence of childhood asthma: a propensity score approach. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125:838–43. e2. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Geronimus AT. Invited commentary: using area-based socioeconomic measures—think conceptually, act cautiously. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:835–40. discussion 41–3. [PubMed]
37. Stafford M, Marmot M. Neighbourhood deprivation and health: does it affect us all equally? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:357–66. [PubMed]
38. Juhn YJ, Sauver JS, Katusic S, et al. The influence of neighborhood environment on the incidence of childhood asthma: a multilevel approach. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:2453–64. [PubMed]
39. O’Campo P, Xue X, Wang MC, et al. Neighborhood risk factors for low birthweight in Baltimore: a multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1113–18. [PubMed]
40. O’Campo P, Burke JG, Culhane J, et al. Neighborhood deprivation and preterm birth among non-Hispanic Black and White women in eight geographic areas in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:155–63. [PubMed]
41. Black JL, Macinko J. The changing distribution and determinants of obesity in the neighborhoods of New York city, 2003–2007. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171:765–75. [PubMed]
42. Eaden J, Mayberry MK, Mayberry JF. Questionnaires: the use and abuse of social survey methods in medical research. Postgrad Med J. 1999;75:397–400. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Melton LJ., 3rd History of the Rochester epidemiology project. Mayo Clin Proc. 1996;71:266–74. [PubMed]