Background
Health inequality and the social gradient in health
Health inequality and the social gradient in the health of children and adolescents
Family- and neighbourhood-level socio-economic factors and their impact on the health and well-being of children and adolescents
Social capital: the concept explored
Social capital and health
Objectives
Method
N° | Collective terms | Search terms |
---|---|---|
1 |
Components of Social Capital
| social capital OR social support OR social resources OR social cohesion OR neighborhood cohesion OR neighbourhood cohesion OR informal social control OR collective efficacy OR neighborhood disorder OR neighbourhood disorder OR social disorganisation OR social disorganization OR social networks |
2 |
Components of Health Gradient
| gradient OR socioeconomic factors OR inequity OR health disparities |
3 |
Components of SES
| socioeconomic status OR social class OR neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage |
4 |
Components of neighbourhood
| residence characteristics OR neighborhood OR neighbourhood |
5 |
Population of young people
| infant OR child OR adolescent OR newborn infant OR preschool child |
6 |
Full search string
| #1 AND (#2 OR #3) AND #4 AND #5 |
Search strategy
Procedure and flowchart
Description and quality of included studies
Analysis of study findings
Results
Reference | Region | Population | SES | Social capital | Outcome | Mediating/pathway model | Moderating model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kohen, Brooks-Gun, Leventhal, & Hertzman, 2002 | Canada | Children (4–5 y) | Neighbourhood income, neighbourhood family structure, neighbourhood unemployment rate | Neighbourhood cohesion (N items = 5, IR: α=0.87)
| Children’s receptive verbal ability + behaviour problems |
Model tested in the study, but no significant results found
|
Model not tested in the study
|
Xue, Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn et al., 2005 | USA, Chicago | Children (6–12 y) | Neighbourhood concentrated disadvantage, family income, maternal education and employment | Neighbourhood collective efficacy: informal social control (N items = 5, IR: not reported) + social cohesion (N items = 5, IR: not reported), neighbourhood organisational participation (N items = 7, IR: not reported)
| Mental health problems (internalising problems) | Neighbourhood concentrated disadvantage → neighbourhood collective efficacy → mental health problems |
Model not tested in the study
|
Caughy & O’Campo, 2006 | USA, Baltimore | African American children (3 – 4.5 y) | Economic impoverishment: poverty rate, unemployment, vacant housing, single-headed families | Parental psychological sense of community (N items = 10, IR: α=0.92), parental willingness to assist children in need (N items = not reported, IR: α=0.81) and stop acts of misbehaviour (N items = not reported, IR: α=0.85)
| Child cognitive competence |
Model tested in the study, but no significant results found
|
Model not tested in the study
|
Drukker, Kaplan, Schneiders, Feron, & van Os, 2006 | The Netherlands, Maastricht | Adolescents (Age M wave 1=10.2 y, wave 2 = 13.5 y) | Neighbourhood social disadvantage index (contains information on family structure, employment status, social benefits, ethnicity, voting behaviour and income). | Collective efficacy: informal social control, social cohesion and trust (N items and IR not reported)
| Quality of life: self-esteem and satisfaction |
Model not tested in the study
|
Model tested in the study, but no significant results found
|
Kohen, Leventhal, Dahinten, & McIntosh, 2008 | Canada | Children (4–5 y) | Neighbourhood structural disadvantage: income, education, unemployment, family structure | Neighbourhood cohesion (N items=5, IR not reported)
| Verbal ability + behaviour problems | SES -> neighbourhood cohesion -> maternal depression -> punitive parenting -> behaviour problems |
Model not tested in the study
|
SES -> neighbourhood cohesion -> family functioning -> consistent parenting -> verbal ability | |||||||
Caughy, Nettles & O'Campo, 2008 | USA, Baltimore | Children 6–7 y | Neighbourhood concentrated economic disadvantage, parental educational attainment, parental employment status | Neighbourhood potential for community involvement with children (N items=not reported, IR: α=0.78 (individual level) and 0.95 (neighbourhood. level), neighbourhood negative social climate (N items=not reported, IR: α=0.76)
| Child behaviour problems (internalising and externalising behaviour problems) |
Model not tested in the study
| Neighbourhood concentrated economic disadvantage X neighbourhood potential for community involvement with children |
Karriker-Jaffe, Foshee, Ennett, & Suchindran, 2009 | USA | Rural adolescents (11–18 y) | Neighbourhood socio-economic disadvantage score: education, employment, economic resources | Neighbourhood-level social organisation: neighbourhood social bonding (N items=4, IR: α=0.75), neighbourhood social control (N items=6, IR: α=0.91)
| Aggression trajectories |
Model tested in the study, but no significant results found
|
Model tested in the study, but no significant results found
|
Odgers et al., 2009 | England & Wales | Children 5–10 y | Neighbourhood deprivation versus affluence, family socio-economic disadvantage | Neighbourhood collective efficacy (IR neighbourhood level: α=0.88): consists of informal social control (N items=5) + social cohesion (N items=5) | Children’s antisocial behaviour: aggression + delinquency |
Model not tested in the study
| Neighbourhood deprivation versus affluence X neighbourhood collective efficacy |
Total number of studies
|
8
|
Quality of included studies
Selection bias | Allocation bias | Confounders | Data collection methods | Withdrawals and dropouts | Comment on the analysis | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kohen, Brooks-Gun, Leventhal, & Hertzman, 2002 | S | M | S | S | NA | -No power calculation |
-Results unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Handling of missing data not reported | ||||||
-Inappropriate statistical methods: multilevel model is required to answer research question | ||||||
-Risk of clustering of children within the same families | ||||||
Xue, Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn et al., 2005 | M | M | S | S | NA | -ICC calculated |
-No power calculation | ||||||
-Results are unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Appropriate handling of missing data | ||||||
-Appropriate statistical methods with remarks: | ||||||
-Analysis of level 1 and 2 variances reported | ||||||
Caughy & O’Campo, 2006 | M | M | M | S | NA | -ICC calculated |
-No power calculation | ||||||
-Results unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Appropriate statistical methods with remarks | ||||||
-No level 1 predicators entered in the model | ||||||
-Analysis of level 2 variance not reported | ||||||
-Small N | ||||||
-Handling of missing data not reported | ||||||
Drukker, Kaplan, Schneiders, Feron, & van Os, 2006 | M | M | S | S | M | -ICC calculated |
-No power calculation | ||||||
-Results are partially unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Appropriate statistical methods with remarks | ||||||
-Possible selective drop-out | ||||||
-Analysis of level 1 and level 2 variance not reported | ||||||
-Small N | ||||||
-Handling of missing data not reported | ||||||
Kohen, Leventhal, Dahinten, & McIntosh, 2008 | S | M | S | S | NA | -No power calculation |
-Results are unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Appropriate statistical methods with remarks | ||||||
-Multilevel SEM would be more suited | ||||||
-Not possible to assess level 1 and level 2 variance, calculate changes in r2, etc. | ||||||
-Appropriate handling of missing data | ||||||
Caughy, Nettles & O'Campo, 2008 | W | M | S | W | NA | -ICC not calculated |
-No power calculation | ||||||
-Results are unambiguously reported Appropriate statistical methods with remarks: | ||||||
-Small N | ||||||
-No analysis of level 1 and 2 variances reported | ||||||
Karriker-Jaffe, Foshee, Ennett, & Suchindran, 2009 | M | M | S | S | W | -ICC calculated |
-No power calculation | ||||||
-Results are unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Appropriate statistical methods with remarks | ||||||
-No analysis of level 1/level 2 variance | ||||||
-Appropriate handling of missing data | ||||||
Odgers et al., 2009 | M | M | S | S | NA | -No power calculation |
-Results are unambiguously reported | ||||||
-Appropriate handling of missing data | ||||||
-Appropriate statistical methods |