Table 2.

Levels at which the social connectedness and discrimination indicators are measured.

First author, yearreference no.	Levels at which social connectedness is measured a	Levels at which racism and discrimination were measured
		Individual and interpersonal	Community/neighborhood/school	Macro/state/structural
Individual and interpersonal
Beach, 201934	Yes	Yes	No	No
Bergeron, 202055	Yes	Yes	No	No
Garcini, 202049	Yes	Yes	No	No
Jang, 202145	Yes	Yes	No	No
Kim, 201446	Yes	Yes	No	No
Lorenzo-Bianco, 201950	Yes	Yes	No	No
Majeno, 201859	Yes	Yes	No	No
Maleku, 202160	Yes	Yes	No	No
Mama, 201637	Yes	Yes	No	No
Marshall, 201238	Yes	Yes	No	No
Negi, 201365	Yes	Yes	No	No
Nelson, 202139	Yes	Yes	No	No
Ngyuen, 201840	Yes	Yes	No	No
Priest, 202041	Yes	Yes	No	No
Rodriguez, 201652	Yes	Yes	No	No
Rollock, 201647	Yes	Yes	No	No
Roth, 202253	Yes	Yes	No	No
Saasa, 202142	Yes	Yes	No	No
Scheuermann, 202061	Yes	Yes	No	No
Shiekh, 202062	Yes	Yes	No	No
Singh, 201566	Yes	Yes	No	No
Steers, 201943	Yes	Yes	No	No
Walton, 201264	Yes	Yes	No	No
Wei, 201248	Yes	Yes	No	No
Wong, 201444	Yes	Yes	No	No
Yang, 201863	Yes	Yes	No	No
Community/neighborhood/school/family
Goosby, 201257	Yes	Yes	No	No
Liao, 201636	Yes	Yes	No	No
Nair, 201351	Yes	Yes	No	No
Lee, 201558	Yes	No	Yes	No
Macro/state/structural	No	No	No	No

^a For the social connectedness metrics, we identify levels by the unit at which it was included in the analysis, rather than the conceptual idea. For instance, perceived “neighborhood” social cohesion queries people about their cognitive appraisals of their community, but the analysis occurs at the individual level. As such, this provides an individual-level result of community associations rather than a contextual-level result of connectedness on health. Studies that are often able to distinguish those type of associations by levels are multilevel or hierarchical analyses.