Table 3.
The Cumulative Effect of Neighborhood Social Adversity and Personal Crime Victimization on Adolescent Psychotic Experiences
| Exposure to Neighborhood Social Adversity and/or Personal Crime Victimizationa | Association of Cumulative Exposure to Neighborhood Social Adversity and Personal Crime Victimization With Adolescent Psychotic Experiencesb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| OR | 95% CI | P Value | OR | 95% CI | P Value | |
| 0—Neither exposure | [Reference] | — | — | [Reference] | — | — |
| 1—Neighborhood social adversity only | 1.52 | 1.18–1.97 | .001 | 1.33 | 1.00–1.78 | .052 |
| 2—Personal crime victimization only | 3.35 | 2.46–4.55 | <.001 | 2.72 | 1.96–3.77 | <.001 |
| 3—Neighborhood social adversity and personal crime victimization | 6.79 | 4.81–9.60 | <.001 | 4.86 | 3.28–7.20 | <.001 |
| Interaction between neighborhood social adversity and personal crime victimization | ICR 2.92, 95% CI = 0.63–5.22, P = .013 | ICR = 1.81, 95% CI = -0.03–3.65, P = .054 | ||||
Note: ICR, interaction contrast ratio; OR, odds ratio from ordinal logistic regression.
aThese 4 exposure categories were created by combining neighborhood social adversity (neighborhood was simultaneously characterized by low social cohesion and high neighborhood disorder) with personal crime victimization: 0 = not exposed to either; 1 = lived in the most socially adverse neighborhood but not personally victimized by violent crime; 2 = personally victimized by violent crime but did not live in the most socially adverse neighborhood; and 3 = exposed to both the most socially adverse neighborhood conditions and also personally victimized by violent crime.
bThe association of cumulative exposures to neighborhood social adversity and personal crime victimization with adolescent psychotic experiences was calculated with ordinal logistic regression because adolescent psychotic experiences are on an ordinal (0–3) rather than binary scale. Model 1—the unadjusted associations of neighborhood social adversity and personal crime victimization with adolescent psychotic experiences. Model 2—adjusted simultaneously for childhood psychotic symptoms, family-level characteristics (family socioeconomic status, family psychiatric history, maternal psychotic symptoms), individual-level characteristics (adolescent alcohol dependence and adolescent cannabis dependence), and neighborhood-level deprivation at age 12. All analyses account for the nonindependence of twin observations.