Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 23, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(3):643-647; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl054
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/3/643    most recent
dyl054v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oakes, J M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oakes, J M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2006; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: Advancing neighbourhood-effects research—selection, inferential support, and structural confounding

J Michael Oakes

Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. E-mail: oakes@epi.umn.edu

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Everyone interested in how residential contexts independently shape health risks (i.e. neighbourhood effects) should study the new paper by Chaix, Rosvall, Lynch, and Merlo (herein after CRLM).1 This paper is one of the best to date on a topic fundamental to social epidemiology and related subdisciplines. I intend to include the paper in my doctoral-level seminars in social epidemiology and community trials and herewith encourage others to share it widely.

CRLM's paper is important because it is methodologically superior to most of the recent literature addressing the same phenomena. Distinguishing strengths include well-formed and clear a priori hypotheses, excellent exposure and outcome data permitting the assurance that study subjects actually resided in the areas of exposure, transparency of methodological choices, expressed interest in causal inference, fairly novel use of a shared-frailty model, simultaneous consideration of two factors, and most importantly, conservative conclusions.

Of course no study is perfect and while . . . [Full Text of this Article]


    Critique
 
Problem 1—inferential support and structural confounding
Problem 1.1
Problem 1.2
Problem 2—selection and biased random effects (frailties)

    Conclusions
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Environment and BehaviorHome page
J. M. Oakes, A. Forsyth, M. O. Hearst, and K. H. Schmitz
Recruiting Participants for Neighborhood Effects Research: Strategies and Outcomes of the Twin Cities Walking Study
Environment and Behavior, November 1, 2009; 41(6): 787 - 805.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Behavioral ScientistHome page
J. M. Oakes
The Effect of Media on Children: A Methodological Assessment From a Social Epidemiologist
American Behavioral Scientist, April 1, 2009; 52(8): 1136 - 1151.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
C. K. Chow, K. Lock, K. Teo, S. Subramanian, M. McKee, and S. Yusuf
Environmental and societal influences acting on cardiovascular risk factors and disease at a population level: a review
Int. J. Epidemiol., March 4, 2009; (2009) dyn258v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Aging HealthHome page
C. F. Mendes de Leon, K. A. Cagney, J. L. Bienias, L. L. Barnes, K. A. Skarupski, P. A. Scherr, and D. A. Evans
Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Disorder in Relation to Walking in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Multilevel Analysis
J Aging Health, February 1, 2009; 21(1): 155 - 171.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Sociol RevHome page
L. Brannstrom
Making Their Mark: The Effects of Neighbourhood and Upper Secondary School on Educational Achievement
Eur. Sociol. Rev., September 1, 2008; 24(4): 463 - 478.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
B Chaix, M Lindstrom, M Rosvall, and J Merlo
Neighbourhood social interactions and risk of acute myocardial infarction
J Epidemiol Community Health, January 1, 2008; 62(1): 62 - 68.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
J. M. Oakes and T. R. Church
Invited Commentary: Advancing Propensity Score Methods in Epidemiology
Am. J. Epidemiol., May 15, 2007; 165(10): 1119 - 1121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
L. C. Messer
Invited Commentary: Beyond the Metrics for Measuring Neighborhood Effects
Am. J. Epidemiol., April 15, 2007; 165(8): 868 - 871.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Urban StudHome page
A. Forsyth, J. M. Oakes, K. H. Schmitz, and M. Hearst
Does Residential Density Increase Walking and Other Physical Activity?
Urban Stud, April 1, 2007; 44(4): 679 - 697.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. MERLO and B. CHAIX
Neighbourhood effects and the real world beyond randomized community trials: a reply to Michael J Oakes
Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2006; 35(5): 1361 - 1363.
[Full Text] [PDF]