Table 1.

Summary of the study findings.

Study	Design	Sample Size 1	Neighborhoods	Association with Neighborhood Deprivation	Physiological System 2	Moderators	Mediators
[36]	CS	4408	100 census tracts	YES	M, N
[35]	CS	4410	102 census tracts	YES	M, N	G, SS
[37]	CS	995	979 census tracts	YES			S, B
[33]	L	452	91 census tracts	YES		SES
[34]	L	1258	318 block groups	NO
[31]	L	420	41 census tracts	YES		SS
[32]	L	818	374 SAMS	YES		G
[38]	CS	550	80 focal neighborhood clusters	YES
[29]	CS	919	69 block groups	YES			E
[30]	CS	866	55 block groups	NO
[16]	CS	919	60 block groups	YES			E
[28]	CS	549	80 focal neighborhood clusters	YES
[27]	CS	13,184	1805 neighborhoods	YES	M, CV
[26]	CS	13,199	1772 census tracts	YES		R

Design: CS (cross-sectional) and L (longitudinal); Associations: associations obtained in the final model YES (positive and significant association between neighborhood deprivation and allostatic load), NO (no significant association); Physiological system: CV (stronger associations with cardiovascular system related biomarkers); M (metabolic); and N (neuroendocrine); Moderators: G (gender), SES (individual socioeconomic status), R (race or ethnicity), SS (social support/cohesion); Mediators: B (health-related behaviors), S (stress/anxiety feelings) and E (physical or social neighborhood environment); SAMS = small-area market statistics. ¹ Number of participants included in the study. ² Physiological systems that showed a stronger association with neighborhood deprivation.