Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb 1;179(3):373-81. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt251. Epub 2013 Oct 22.
Measurements of neighborhood exposures likely vary depending on the definition of "neighborhood" selected. This study examined the extent to which neighborhood definition influences findings regarding spatial accessibility to tobacco retailers among youth. We defined spatial accessibility to tobacco retailers (i.e., tobacco retail density, closest tobacco retailer, and average distance to the closest 5 tobacco retailers) on the basis of circular and network buffers of 400 m and 800 m, census block groups, and census tracts by using residential addresses from the 2008 Boston Youth Survey Geospatial Dataset (n = 1,292). Friedman tests (to compare overall differences in neighborhood definitions) were applied. There were differences in measurements of youths' access to tobacco retailers according to the selected neighborhood definitions, and these were marked for the 2 spatial proximity measures (both P < 0.01 for all differences). For example, the median average distance to the closest 5 tobacco retailers was 381.50 m when using specific home addresses, 414.00 m when using census block groups, and 482.50 m when using census tracts, illustrating how neighborhood definition influences the measurement of spatial accessibility to tobacco retailers. These analyses suggest that, whenever possible, egocentric neighborhood definitions should be used. The use of larger administrative neighborhood definitions can bias exposure estimates for proximity measures.
对社区暴露的测量可能因所选“社区”定义而异。本研究探讨了社区定义对青少年获取烟草零售商的空间可达性研究结果的影响程度。我们基于 400m 和 800m 的圆形和网络缓冲区、普查街区组和普查地段,根据 2008 年波士顿青年调查地理空间数据集(n=1292)中的居住地址,定义了烟草零售商的空间可达性(即烟草零售密度、最近的烟草零售商和到最近的 5 家烟草零售商的平均距离)。采用 Friedman 检验(比较不同社区定义之间的总体差异)。根据所选社区定义,青少年获取烟草零售商的测量值存在差异,这两个空间接近度指标都有显著差异(所有差异均 P < 0.01)。例如,使用特定家庭地址时,最近的 5 家烟草零售商的平均距离中位数为 381.50m,使用普查街区组时为 414.00m,使用普查地段时为 482.50m,这说明了社区定义如何影响对烟草零售商的空间可达性的测量。这些分析表明,只要可能,就应使用以自我为中心的社区定义。使用更大的行政社区定义可能会使接近度测量的暴露估计产生偏差。