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).”
“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;
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.”
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.
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.
Tables S1-S6 are updated here: http://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.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Supplemental digital content is available through direct URL citations in the HTML and PDF versions of this article (www.environepidem.com).
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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.