Identifying Communities at Risk for Poor Health using Multidimensional vs. Unidimensional Neighborhood Disadvantage Indices

Background: Neighborhood disadvantage indices used in public health research and policy include multiple economic, social, and housing items. However, research has failed to question whether it is necessary to include a multitude of economic, social, and housing variables in a single index. The purpose of this work was to examine three different neighborhood indices: a multidimensional disadvantage index, a unidimensional disadvantage index, and a unidimensional affluence index, and examine their performance with respect to distinguishing between healthy and unhealthy census tract neighborhoods in the United States. Methods: The 2022 disadvantage and affluence indices came from the National Neighborhood Data Archive, which are derived from census tract data from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2018-2022). The multidimensional disadvantage index included seven economic, social (e.g., single parent households), and housing items; the unidimensional disadvantage index included three poverty and income items; the unidimensional affluence index included 3 items capturing greater social and economic resources. Data on neighborhood health status (census tract prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease) was obtained from the Population Level Analysis and Community EStimates database for 2022 and linked to the disadvantage and affluence indices for 83,522 census tracts. Contingency tables examined the degree of correspondence in quintiles across the three different indices and the corresponding disease prevalence in each cell. Generalized linear mixed models regressed the disease prevalence variables on index quintiles to determine the predicted prevalence of disease across the disadvantage gradient for each index. Results: Compared to the unidimensional disadvantage and affluence indices, the multidimensional disadvantage index underestimated disease burden in the most disadvantaged census tracts, and overestimated disease burden in the least disadvantaged tracts. Conclusions: Using a disadvantage or affluence index with a more parsimonious set of items would have greater precision in identifying communities at risk for poor health.