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

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Erratum

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

Author Information
Environmental Epidemiology 7(1):p e240, February 2023. | DOI: 10.1097/EE9.0000000000000240

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.

REFERENCE

Eick SM, Lara Cushing L, Goin DE DE, et al. Neighborhood conditions and birth outcomes: understanding the role of perceived and extrinsic measures of neighborhood quality. Environ Epidemiol. 2022;6:e224.

Supplemental Digital Content

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The Environment Epidemiology. All rights reserved.