Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2011 Jan;30(1):84-95.
doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00191.x.

Areas of disadvantage: a systematic review of effects of area-level socioeconomic status on substance use outcomes

Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Areas of disadvantage: a systematic review of effects of area-level socioeconomic status on substance use outcomes

Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011 Jan.

Abstract

Issues: This review examines whether area-level disadvantage is associated with increased substance use and whether study results are impacted by the size of the area examined, definition of socioeconomic status (SES), age or ethnicity of participants, outcome variables or analytic techniques.

Approach: Five electronic databases and the reference sections of identified papers were searched to locate studies of the effects of area-level SES on substance use published through the end of 2007 in English-language, peer-reviewed journals or books. The 41 studies that met inclusion criteria included 238 effects, with a subsample of 34 studies (180 effects) used for the main analyses. Study findings were stratified by methodological characteristics and synthesised using generalised estimating equations to account for clustering of effects within studies.

Key findings: There was strong evidence that substance use outcomes cluster by geographic area, but there was limited and conflicting support for the hypothesis that area-level disadvantage is associated with increased substance use. Support for the disadvantage hypothesis appeared to vary by sample age and ethnicity, size of area examined, type of SES measure, specific outcome considered and analysis techniques.

Implications: Future studies should use rigorous methods to yield more definitive conclusions about the effects of area-level SES on alcohol and drug outcomes, including composite measures of SES and both bivariate and multivariate analyses.

Conclusion: Further research is needed to identify confounds of the relationship between area-level SES and substance use and to explain why the effects of area-level SES vary by outcome and residents' age.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Jencks C, Mayer SE. The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In: Lynn LE Jr, McGeary MCH, editors. Inner city poverty in the US. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. pp. 111–185.
    1. Kramer R. Poverty, inequality, and youth violence. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2000;567:123–139.
    1. Sampson RJ, Groves WB. Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. Am J Sociol. 1989;94(4):774–802.
    1. Sampson RJ. Urban black violence: the effect of male joblessness and family disruption. Am J Sociol. 1987;93(2):349–382.
    1. Cohen DA, Mason K, Bedimo A, Scribner R, Basolo V, Farley TA. Neighborhood physical conditions and health. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(3):467–471. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources