Neighborhood conditions and birth outcomes: understanding the role of perceived and extrinsic measures of neighborhood quality: Erratum

In the article in the August 2022 compendium, the authors regret to inform that in the dataset used to create this article, 15 participants were incorrectly classified as having not experienced poor perceived neighborhood quality. We have accordingly corrected and replaced all tables which included incorrect results here.

We would also like to correct the following sentences:

“In adjusted models, having poor perceived neighborhood quality was associated with higher birthweight z-scores, relative to those who did not perceive their neighborhood as poor quality (β = 0.21, 95% confidence intervals = 0.01, 0.42).” should be “In adjusted models, having poor perceived neighborhood quality was associated with higher birthweight z-scores, relative to those who did not perceive their neighborhood as poor quality (β = 0.17, 95% confidence intervals = –0.03, 0.37).”

“In the overall study population, 17% (N = 141) reported poor perceived neighborhood quality and these individuals were also more likely to live in the most disadvantaged areas according to all extrinsic measures (Table 2).” should be “In the overall study population, 19% (N = 156) reported poor perceived neighborhood quality and these individuals were also more likely to live in the most disadvantaged areas according to all extrinsic measures (Table 2).”

Table 2. - Distribution of perceived neighborhood measures across extrinsic neighborhood measures.

	Poor neighborhood quality		Dissatisfied with neighborhood		Disorderly neighborhood		Unsafe neighborhood
	No (N = 515)	Yes (N = 156)	No (N = 668)	Yes (N = 98)	No (N = 718)	Yes (N = 48)	No (N = 656)	Yes (N = 110)
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
ICE Income
Low (most disadvantaged)	135 (26 %)	83 (53 %)	185 (28 %)	65 (66 %)	224 (31 %)	25 (52 %)	191 (29 %)	58 (53 %)
Medium	182 (35 %)	38 (24 %)	233 (35 %)	20 (20 %)	242 (34 %)	12 (25 %)	233 (36 %)	21 (19 %)
High (least disadvantaged)	198 (38 %)	35 (22 %)	250 (37 %)	13 (13 %)	252 (35 %)	11 (23 %)	232 (35 %)	31 (28 %)
Area Deprivation Index
Low (least disadvantaged)	245 (48 %)	56 (36 %)	308 (46 %)	31 (32 %)	326 (45 %)	14 (29 %)	302 (46 %)	38 (35 %)
Medium	117 (23 %)	34 (22 %)	153 (23 %)	18 (18 %)	159 (22 %)	12 (25 %)	149 (23 %)	22 (20 %)
High (most disadvantaged)	149 (29 %)	66 (42 %)	202 (30 %)	49 (50 %)	228 (32 %)	22 (46 %)	200 (30 %)	50 (45 %)
Urban displacement
Exclusive	173 (34 %)	29 (19 %)	211 (32 %)	13 (13 %)	218 (30 %)	6 (12 %)	201 (31 %)	23 (21 %)
Stable	242 (47 %)	61 (39 %)	320 (48 %)	30 (31 %)	332 (46 %)	19 (40 %)	309 (47 %)	42 (38 %)
Ongoing gentrification	88 (17 %)	64 (41 %)	124 19 %)	53 (54 %)	155 (22 %)	21 (44 %)	131 (20 %)	45 (41 %)

ICE, index of concentrations at the extremes.

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding and missing values. Perceived neighborhood quality is a composite measure of neighborhood dissatisfaction, disorderly neighborhood, unsafe neighborhood, and collective efficacy.

“After adjustment for maternal age, education, and marital status, having poor perceived neighborhood quality, being dissatisfied with one’s neighborhood and living in a neighborhood experiencing ongoing gentrification were associated with higher birthweight z-scores (Table 3) (β = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.42; β = 0.22, 95% CI = –0.02, 0.45;

Table 3. - Linear regression estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between perceived and extrinsic neighborhood measures and birth outcomes.

	Gestational age (weeks)						Birthweight Z-scores
	Unadjusted			Adjusted 1			Unadjusted			Adjusted 1
	N	Beta	95% CI	N	Beta	95% CI	N	Beta	95% CI	N	Beta	95% CI
Extrinsic
ICE Income
Low (most disadvantaged)	241	-0.49	(-0.84, -0.15)	221	-0.14	(-0.53, 0.25)	239	0.11	(-0.07, 0.29)	219	0.19	(-0.01, 0.38)
Medium	255	-0.21	(-0.57, 0.14)	232	0.02	(-0.32, 0.35)	253	0.02	(-0.15, 0.19)	230	0.06	(-0.11, 0.23)
High (least disadvantaged)	266	Ref	Ref	245	Ref	Ref	263	Ref	Ref	242	Ref	Ref
Area Deprivation Index
Low (least disadvantaged)	338	Ref	Ref	310	Ref	Ref	332	Ref	Ref	304	Ref	Ref
Medium	176	-0.46	(-0.85, -0.07)	154	-0.32	(-0.67, 0.03)	176	-0.02	(-0.19, 0.15)	154	0.01	(-0.17, 0.18)
High (most disadvantaged)	243	-0.38	(-0.71, -0.06)	231	-0.35	(-0.67, -0.02)	242	-0.04	(-0.21, 0.13)	230	-0.05	(-0.23, 0.14)
Urban displacement
Exclusive	228	Ref	Ref	211	Ref	Ref	225	Ref	Ref	208	Ref	Ref
Stable	350	0.25	(-0.11, 0.61)	318	0.32	(-0.02, 0.65)	348	0.02	(-0.14, 0.18)	316	0.07	(-0.09, 0.24)
Ongoing gentrification	168	-0.2	(-0.63, 0.24)	156	0.19	(-0.26, 0.64)	166	0.1	(-0.1, 0.3)	154	0.22	(-0.01, 0.44)
Perceived
Poor neighborhood quality
No	496	Ref	Ref	471	Ref	Ref	494	Ref	Ref	469	Ref	Ref
Yes	145	-0.26	(-0.6, 0.08)	138	-0.11	(-0.47, 0.24)	143	0.1	(-0.09, 0.28)	136	0.17	(-0.03, 0.37)
Dissatisfied with neighborhood
No	640	Ref	Ref	605	Ref	Ref	635	Ref	Ref	600	Ref	Ref
Yes	89	-0.33	(-0.75, 0.09)	87	0.05	(-0.39, 0.5)	87	0.16	(-0.06, 0.38)	85	0.22	(-0.02, 0.45)
Disorderly neighborhood
No	685	Ref	Ref	649	Ref	Ref	678	Ref	Ref	642	Ref	Ref
Yes	45	0.2	(-0.37, 0.78)	43	0.43	(-0.16, 1.01)	45	0.11	(-0.19, 0.41)	43	0.18	(-0.13, 0.49)
Unsafe neighborhood
No	628	Ref	Ref	594	Ref	Ref	622	Ref	Ref	588	Ref	Ref
Yes	102	-0.27	(-0.67, 0.12)	98	-0.14	(-0.55, 0.26)	101	0.05	(-0.15, 0.26)	97	0.12	(-0.1, 0.33)

ICE, index of concentrations at the extremes; CI, confidence interval.

¹Models adjusted for age, education, and marital status.

Perceived neighborhood quality is a composite measure of neighborhood dissatisfaction, disorderly neighborhood, unsafe neighborhood, and collective efficacy.

β = 0.22, 95% CI = –0.01, 0.44, respectively).” should be “After adjustment for maternal age, education, and marital status, having poor perceived neighborhood quality, being dissatisfied with one’s neighborhood and living in a neighborhood experiencing ongoing gentrification were associated with higher birthweight z-scores (Table 3) (β = 0.17, 95% CI = –0.03, 0.37; β = 0.22, 95% CI = –0.02, 0.45; β = 0.22, 95% CI = –0.01, 0.44, respectively).”

“This corresponds to an increase of 91 g and 95 g for poor perceived neighborhood quality and neighborhood dissatisfaction, respectively, for a 40-week gestation birth.” should be “This corresponds to an increase of 74 g and 95 g for poor perceived neighborhood quality and neighborhood dissatisfaction, respectively, for a 40-week gestation birth.”

Tables S1-S6 are updated here: https://links.lww.com/EE/A195.

The authors feel that the conclusions of the manuscript are unchanged. We apologize for this error.

Table 4. - Adjusted linear regression estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between extrinsic neighborhood measures and birth outcomes stratified by perceived poor neighborhood quality.

	Gestational Age (weeks)						Birthweight Z Scores
	Poor Neighborhood Quality – Yes			Poor Neighborhood Quality – No			Poor Neighborhood Quality – Yes			Poor Neighborhood Quality – No
	N	Beta	95% CI	N	Beta	95% CI	N	Beta	95% CI	N	Beta	95% CI
Extrinsic
ICE Income
Low (most disadvantaged)	74	-0.23	(-0.99, 0.52)	122	-0.34	(-0.81, 0.14)	73	0.12	(-0.31, 0.55)	121	0.2	(-0.04, 0.44)
Medium	33	-0.31	(-1.09, 0.46)	166	-0.01	(-0.37, 0.36)	32	0.04	(-0.41, 0.5)	166	0.07	(-0.13, 0.27)
High (least disadvantaged)	31	Ref	Ref	183	Ref	Ref	31	Ref	Ref	182	Ref	Ref
Area Deprivation Index
Low (least disadvantaged)	50	Ref	Ref	225	Ref	Ref	48	Ref	Ref	224	Ref	Ref
Medium	30	-0.09	(-0.76, 0.58)	106	-0.28	(-0.67, 0.11)	30	-0.21	(-0.73, 0.3)	106	0.02	(-0.19, 0.22)
High (most disadvantaged)	58	-0.25	(-1.01, 0.52)	138	-0.31	(-0.68, 0.06)	58	-0.49	(-0.98, 0)	137	0.03	(-0.19, 0.25)
Urban displacement
Exclusive	27	Ref	Ref	159	Ref	Ref	27	Ref	Ref	158	Ref	Ref
Stable	52	-0.48	(-1.16, 0.2)	222	0.37	(0.02, 0.73)	51	0.04	(-0.37, 0.44)	222	0.06	(-0.13, 0.26)
Ongoing gentrification	57	-0.01	(-0.79, 0.77)	80	-0.05	(-0.61, 0.5)	56	0.28	(-0.19, 0.75)	79	0.18	(-0.11, 0.48)

ICE, index of concentrations at the extremes; CI, confidence interval.

Models adjusted for age, education, and marital status.

Perceived neighborhood quality is a composite measure of neighborhood dissatisfaction, disorderly neighborhood, unsafe neighborhood, and collective efficacy.