Introduction
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevalence is steadily increasing globally [1]. In the United States, there is particular concern regarding T2D among Hispanic/Latino adults as they are 70% more likely to be diagnosed with T2D than non-Hispanic White adults [2], and are more likely to develop T2D at younger ages [3,4]. Established risk factors of T2D include genetic factors, age, obesity, physical activity, and diet. Natural, built, and social environmental factors may also affect the risk of T2D by influencing other risk factors such as physical activity patterns and diet, or by altering physiological stress responses [5–9].
The neighborhood environment can both promote and discourage physical activity. Sidewalks, bike lanes, connected streets, and nearby businesses can help promote walking and active transportation [10,11]. Lack of sidewalks or sidewalks in poor condition can discourage physical activity [12,13]. In a cross-sectional analysis of San Diego based participants of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), those areas with higher residential density, retail density, or recreation areas reported higher active transportation than those in lower areas [14].
Neighborhood environment characteristics have also been linked to T2D. In the San Diego site of the HCHS/SOL, greater neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was found to be associated with higher HbA1c levels (Coeff: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.12) and having worse diabetes status at baseline (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.47) [15]. Greater neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was also associated with worsening diabetes status at the second visit (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.46) [15]. Dendup et al. (2021) found lack of access to local amenities can increase risk of T2D through associations with higher body mass index (BMI) and lower physical activity. A longitudinal study of Black adults in Jackson, Mississippi found neighborhood problems (noise, heavy traffic, speeding cars, lack of access to adequate food or shopping, litter) to be associated with incident T2D (1.24, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.54, respectively) [16]. This study also found physical activity to be a potential mediator between neighborhood violence and problems and the prevalence of T2D [16]. Lack of access to healthy foods and greater proximity to fast-food establishments can also encourage diets known to be associated with increased T2D risk [17,18].
In aggregate, these studies suggest that neighborhood environment factors can affect T2D risk. However, some of these factors, such as heavy traffic and noise, may be highly correlated, and high levels of inter-correlation make it challenging to isolate the impact of specific environmental factors on T2D risk. Additionally, previous inclusion of specific neighborhood environmental factors in epidemiological analysis of T2D has been largely based on a priori hypotheses and all potential factors have not been evaluated agnostically. While having an a priori hypothesis is a strength and recommended, literature on neighborhood environment measures and T2D is limited and important measures or classes of measures may have been overlooked due to lack of prior investigation. Therefore, in the analysis presented below, we adopted a hypothesis-generating ‘big data’ approach inspired by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to uncover patterns in associations of environmental factors with T2D risk. Our goal was to compare these associations and identify the factors most likely to benefit from future hypothesis-driven studies. This approach, termed “Neighborhood environment-wide association study (‘NE-WAS’)” is an empirical way to systematically identify neighborhood environment factors associated with an outcome of interest [19–21]. This NE-WAS investigated the association between hundreds of neighborhood environment variables linked to residential address and incident diabetes. We aimed to identify neighborhood-scale environment factors most strongly associated with incident diabetes in this population.
Methods
Study design and population
We used data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). HCHS/SOL is a longitudinal cohort made up of 16,415 self-identifying Hispanic/Latinos adults at least 18 years in age at enrollment from four US cities [22]. More details on the HCHS/SOL sample and study design have been previously reported [23,24]. Briefly, the cohort enrollment and in-person baseline visits spanned from 2008 to 2011 in the Bronx, Chicago, Miami, and San Diego. Yearly follow-up phone calls were conducted and a second round of in-person visits (visit 2) occurred between 2014 and 2017.
The in-person visits at baseline and visit 2 included questionnaires and clinical examinations. The questionnaires assessed demographics, current health and medical history, and socioeconomic status [24]. Clinical examinations included collection of blood and urine for assays of cardiovascular risk factors [24]. The yearly follow-up phone calls contained questions on general health, potential updates from their doctors or health professional, and any potential hospitalization or emergency room visits that occurred since the last follow-up [24]. The study population for this analysis included participants who completed the baseline and 2nd visit and were free of diabetes at baseline. All participating institutions received approval by their respective institutional review boards (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, San Diego State University, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Miami, and University of North Carolina) and written informed consent, in either English or Spanish, was received from all participants. Study #00010745 was also approved by the University of Washington IRB. Data for the HCHS/SOL cohort was accessed on February 17th 2023.
Diabetes ascertainment
Diabetes status was collected at baseline, during each follow-up phone call, and at the second in-person visit. At these times, participants were specifically asked if a doctor or health care professional has told them they have diabetes or high sugar in their blood and if they are receiving any treatment [24]. During the in-person visits, blood tests were administered to test fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) [24]. A 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was also conducted on participants with who did not self-report a diabetes diagnosis and on participants with FPG > 150 mg/dL [25]. Based on the American Diabetes Association criteria and data collection practices, we defined diabetes in this analysis in two ways. Our primary definition was having an FPG ≥ 126 mg/dL; HbA1c level ≥6.5%; post-OGTT glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL; and/or use of antihyperglycemic drugs. Our secondary definition included all those who fit the primary definition of diabetes and additionally includes those who self-reported diabetes or high sugar in their blood. Ascertainment of diabetes in the HCHS/SOL cohort was not able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Neighborhood environment measures
Participant residential addresses at baseline were collected and geocoded. Of the 16,415 enrolled participants, 16,390 had their baseline residential addresses geocoded. There were 8,288 unique baseline addresses as multiple participants could live in the same household. For each residential address, we compiled a data set of 361 neighborhood environment measures. These neighborhood environmental measures were collected from publicly available data sources including the 2010 Census and American Community Survey, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Emission Inventory database and the National Neighborhood Data archive (NaNDA). This archive includes data from the National Transit Map, the National Establishment Time Series database, and the Federal Communications Commission. Data from these sources were accessed and downloaded on February 17th 2023.
We removed 31 neighborhood measures related to the amount and type of schools in a census tract due to high percentage of missingness. We also removed measures with standard deviation of zero, and measures where more than 90% of participants had a zero value for said measure from the dataset (e.g., confined feeding operations land use in 1 km buffer).
We computed Pearson correlation coefficients for all pairs of neighborhood measures and excluded one measure of any pair whose coefficient exceeded 0.9. For example, the percentage of households with a smartphone or tablet and the percentage of households with any computing device were correlated at 0.94. Accordingly, we removed the percentage of households with a smartphone or tablet from our measure list. For each of the remaining 204 measures, we generated histograms to observe distribution for both non-transformed and log-transformed data. For 58 (28.4%) of these measures, the log-transformed data distribution visually appeared more normal than the non-transformed measures. For these measures (detailed in S1 Table), we used log-transformed measures in analysis; for the other 146, we used the non-transformed version.
A list of all neighborhood environment measures and the data sources used in analysis can be found in S1 Table. Forty-two measures (concerning features including length of A3 roads, elevations above sea level, and deciduous forests) were measured within a 1 km radius buffer of the home. One-hundred and sixty-two measures (concerning features including percentage occupied housing units occupied by renter, density of social services organizations, and proportion of open park land) were measured within the 2010 census tract.
Inclusion criteria
Starting with the 11,619 participants with ascertainment of diabetes status at visit 2, analysis was limited to those who were free of diabetes at baseline (N = 9209 for primary diabetes outcome and N = 9,077 for secondary diabetes outcome). Analysis was further limited to participants with a successfully geocoded residential address (N = 8006 for primary diabetes outcome and N = 7889 for secondary diabetes outcome).
Statistical analysis
For the primary analysis, we ran individual Poisson regression models for incident diabetes at visit 2 and each neighborhood environment variable z-score controlling for age and gender. We used years in the study as an offset to allow for different amounts of time at risk between participants. Our secondary analysis adjusted for additional person-level covariates that tend to confound environmental exposure hypotheses: educational attainment, income, marital status, duration of US residence, family history of diabetes, Hispanic/Latino heritage, and study center. For all regression models we used complete case analysis. We applied sampling weights to account for the HCHS/SOL complex sampling design, those living in the same household, and participant non-response at visit 2 by using the survey package in R [23]. The sampling weights were also calibrated to the age, sex, and Hispanic/Latino heritage from the 2010 US Census. To account for multiple comparisons, we used the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) approach.
Manhattan plots were generated to visually inspect patterns of variable categories and their strength of association with incident diabetes. For these plots, neighborhood measures were categorized into one of six bins: ‘Demographics and Households’, ‘Education, Employment, and Income’, ‘Goods and Services’, ‘Healthcare’, ‘Recreation and Transportation’, and ‘Urban Form’ by expert opinion. These groupings were to help with visual interpretation of the plots and not involved in the modeling. The bin categorization for each measure is included in S1 Table. Then, consistent with the approach used to visualize GWAS results, we plotted the negative log p-value (representing strength of association) for each measure and ordered them in categorical groups.
As an alternate approach for handling dependence between the 204 neighborhood measures and to reduce dimensionality, we conducted a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). We initially ran this PCA with the same data set used in the individual measure Poisson regression models. Results showed strong influence by study center. To identify correlation of components irrespective of study center, we regressed all the neighborhood measures on study center and conducted a PCA of the residuals. We then used the first and second components, which accounted for 16% of the total variance, as predictors in a Poisson regression model adjusting for age, sex, educational attainment, income, marital status, duration of US residence, family history of diabetes, and Hispanic/Latino heritage group.
Sensitivity analysis
In a sensitivity analysis, we repeated analyses using the diabetes outcome definition that included self-reported diagnosis. As the exposures are only measured at residential baseline addresses and participants may move to a different location during follow-up with different exposure levels, we also conducted a sensitivity analysis on the subset of participants (n = 4188; 52.3% of total) who did not move during follow-up.
All analyses were conducted in R Studio (Ver 4.1.3)
Results
Descriptive statistics of the 8,006 study participants included in the primary analysis are presented in Table 1. A descriptive table by study center is presented in S2 Table. The weighted average age was 39.2 years old and the weighted percentage of females was 50.5% (Table 1). The age-adjusted diabetes incidence rate between baseline and visit 2 for the analytic cohort was 16.53 cases per 1,000 person-years. There were 194 incident cases in The Bronx, 283 in Chicago, 185 in Miami, and 264 in San Diego.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The NE-WAS independent Poisson regression models on the association between the primary diabetes outcome and 204 neighborhood measurements, adjusted for age and sex, yielded 37 statistically significant associations at p < 0.05; however, none of these remained statistically significant at the FDR-adjusted p < 0.05 level. The fully adjusted model yielded 11 statistically significant associations; none of which were statistically significant at the FDR-adjusted p < 0.05 level.
Center-specific NE-WAS independent Poisson regressions adjusting for age and sex yielded one neighborhood measure significant at the FDR-adjusted p < 0.05 level in Chicago, 0 in the Bronx, 7 in Miami, and 0 in San Diego (Table 2). Manhattan plots for each study center are presented in Fig 1.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
FDR and Bonferroni corrections lines are in black. For Chicago, the FDR threshold is 3.22, and for Miami the FDR threshold is 2.80.
The first and second principal components (PC) of the PCA explained 9.6% and 6.8% of the total variance, respectively (S3 Fig). These component scores were not associated with diabetes incidence. The IRR for the first component was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99–1.03), and IRR for the second component was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99–1.03). The most important predictors of diabetes in all models were age and family history of diabetes, which remained significantly associated with diabetes incidence even after adjustment for neighborhood factors (S4 Table).
In analyses expanding the diabetes incidence definition to include self-reported diagnosis, the age-adjusted incidence rate was 24.4 cases/1,000 person-years. Associations for the fully adjusted and study center specific models were similar. However, for the age and sex adjusted model, 61 exposures were statistically significant and 20 were statistically significant after FDR correction (Table 3).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
The population who did not move differed from the population that did move by a number of demographics including age, years in the US, and family history of diabetes (S5 Table). Restricting the analysis to those participants who did not move during follow-up (52.3%) yielded similar results for the fully adjusted model and the San Diego model when using the primary definition of diabetes. However, for the model only adjusting for age and sex, 11 neighborhood measures were significant with the FDR correction (Table 4). For the center-specific models, Chicago again only had one significant measure, number of full-service restaurants per square mile with 2 or more employees, with the FDR correction. The Bronx had two significant measures with the FDR correction, the number of home health services per 1,000 people with 2 + employees and the density of furniture stores in 2010. Miami only had one significant measure with the FDR correction, meters to medium port.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Discussion
Using an empirical high-dimensional analysis approach, we assessed the association between 204 neighborhood environment measures and diabetes incidence in a Hispanic/Latino cohort. Neither the fully adjusted nor the age and sex adjusted NE-WAS independent Poisson regressions yielded any significant associations between neighborhood measures and diabetes incidence. While a few neighborhood measures were associated with diabetes incidence in center-specific models, these measures varied across cities. Taken together, these results suggest that, if there is a strong environmental determinant of diabetes, that determinant is largely uncorrelated with commonly measured neighborhood features.
Our sensitivity analysis including self-reported diabetes in the outcome assessment resulted in more neighborhood measures associated with diabetes. Including the self-reported diabetes increased the age-adjusted incidence rate, which may explain the increase in associated neighborhood measures as the two samples were statistically different based on demographic characteristics such as age, waist circumference, sex, and Hispanic/Latino heritage (S6 Table). Our second sensitivity analysis on those who did not move during the follow-up period also resulted in more associated neighborhood measures than the primary analysis. Differences on several diabetes risk factors were observed between those participants who did and did move between visits (S5 Table). This indicates that those who move are not a random subsample and therefore provided a rationale for adjusting the statistical models for moving status. There is little overlap between the sets of statistically significant neighborhood measures from our two sensitivity analyses, which are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. While our sensitivity analysis showed how different samples of the study population can vary the results, we overall have little confidence these results indicate any causal relationship.
Neither the NE-WAS nor the PCA results identified a clearly interpretable set of neighborhood measurements or clusters of measurements. Individual risk factors such as age and family history of diabetes appear to matter more than the neighborhood environment risk factors included in this analysis. This is consistent with well-established individual risk factors of T2D [1,2,26,27]. Additionally, while investigation of effect modification of neighborhood measures on the relationship between individual risk factors and diabetes incidence was out of the scope of this manuscript, it is an important next step for future studies.
Contrary to our results, previous research has linked neighborhood environment and neighborhood socioeconomic constructs to T2D [15,16,28]. In the San Diego site of the HCHS/SOL, greater neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was associated with worsening diabetes status (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.46) after 6 years of follow-up [15]. Previous studies on neighborhood environment and incident T2D clustered related neighborhood measures into a single variable such as “neighborhood problems”, “neighborhood violence”, “social disorder”, or “neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation” using principal component analysis [15,16]. These designs of purposefully clustering measures into a single metric may be a possible reason for contrary results. However, our PCA did not yield any clusters explaining large proportions of the variation, and all components were null in prediction of diabetes.
Strengths of this analysis included the utilization of a large well-established cohort of self-identifying Hispanic/Latino adults, an underrepresented group in diabetes research, in 4 major US metropolitan areas. Participants were from a range of Hispanic/Latino heritage groups. This analysis allowed for the investigation of the relationship between 204 neighborhood measures and incident diabetes.
There are a few limitations to note. First, while the NE-WAS analysis is explicitly exploratory, this exploration relies on an assumption that the most promising measures for follow-up study are those with strong unadjusted associations with diabetes on a direct pathway between exposure and diabetes. While we adjusted for a set of individual covariates, it is possible there may be environmental or neighborhood level confounding that weakens associations between a truly important neighborhood measure and diabetes incidence. Our concerns on this count are somewhat mitigated by our removal of tightly correlated pairs of neighborhood measures and the robustness of our null findings to different specifications of diabetes. Second, unlike in GWAS analysis, our neighborhood measures are continuous and can be untransformed or log-transformed. Our choice of transformations was principled but may have result dose-response patterns that are artifacts of our choices.
Third, while we examined 204 different measures, those measures were selected for convenience based on their availability: neighborhood measures that were not readily available to us, such as traffic density and noise [16,29–31], may have stronger associations with T2D. Fourth, our selection of a 1 km buffer for the participant’s neighborhood may have precluded identifying associations that might exist with measures at other buffer sizes. While a 1-km buffer is commonly used for neighborhood environments, other buffer distances may be relevant and important [19,32]. However, some of our neighborhood measures were reported at the census tract level, and would remain unchanged with varying neighborhood buffers. Yet, the neighborhood environment outside their 1-km residential area or census tract, such as their place of work and larger community environment, was unaccounted for and may affect T2D risk as well.
Fifth, the average follow-up time was 6.14 years which may not be of sufficient duration to develop T2D. As the appropriate exposure window for each exposure is unclear, and we do not have residential data prior to baseline, we focused our analysis on exposure over the follow-up period to investigate diabetes incidence. Additionally, we are unable to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in our ascertainment. However, given the age of the HCHS/SOL cohort, the greater majority of incident cases are likely type 2. Lastly, this analysis was focused on 4 major metropolitan areas with large Hispanic/Latino populations in the United States. Results might be different in regions outside the United States or in smaller urban, suburban, or rural areas. Future studies should expand to other cities and regions to increase generalizability.
Conclusion
We conducted a NE-WAS analysis and PCA to identify specific neighborhood measures, or clusters of measures, associated with diabetes. Overall, results from our analysis did not indicate specific neighborhood measures, clusters, or patterns. Individual risk factors remain better potential intervention targets for type 2 Diabetes. Future non-cross-sectional studies on the HCHS/SOL cohort should investigate the potentially varying associations among movers and non-movers if the exposure is only accounted for at baseline. Future studies can also incorporate data from additional visits of HCHS/SOL.
Supporting information
S1 Table. List of neighborhood measures used in analysis, if they were log transformed for analysis, their bin categorization, and their data source.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Characteristics of participants included in analysis of primary diabetes outcome (N = 8006) by study center.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282.s002
(DOCX)
S3 Fig. Scree plot of first 10 dimensions (principal components) from PCA using study center based residuals.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282.s003
(TIF)
S4 Table. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) from Poisson regression of the first two principal components and incident diabetes adjusting for age, sex, education, income, marital status, ethnic background, years in US, family history of diabetes and accounting for survey weights and design.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282.s004
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Characteristics of participants who did not move during follow up (N = 4188) and those who did move (N = 3818).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282.s005
(DOCX)
S6 Table. Characteristics of participants with incident diabetes based on the primary (N = 926) and secondary definition (N = 1323).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282.s006
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the staff and participants of HCHS/SOL for their important contributions. We also like to thank all those who worked on the National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA); the open data repository was very useful when compiling neighborhood environment data.
References
1. 1. Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2017;389(10085):2239–51. pmid:28190580
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
2. 2. Office of Minority Health. Diabetes and Hispanic Americans. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=63. 2021.
3. 3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Hispanic or Latino People and Type 2 Diabetes. 2022.
4. 4. Cordero C, Schneiderman N, Llabre MM, Teng Y, Daviglus ML, Cowie CC, et al. Diabetes Incidence Among Hispanic/Latino Adults in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). Diabetes Care. 2022;45(6):1482–5. pmid:35506707
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
5. 5. Kolb H, Martin S. Environmental/lifestyle factors in the pathogenesis and prevention of type 2 diabetes. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):131. pmid:28720102
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
6. 6. Leal C, Chaix B. The influence of geographic life environments on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review, a methodological assessment and a research agenda. Obes Rev. 2011;12(3):217–30. pmid:20202135
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
7. 7. Papas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, Klassen AC. The built environment and obesity. Epidemiol Rev. 2007;29:129–43. pmid:17533172
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
8. 8. Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1186:125–45. pmid:20201871
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
9. 9. Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74–81. pmid:18977112
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
10. 10. Smith M, Hosking J, Woodward A, Witten K, MacMillan A, Field A, et al. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport - an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):158. pmid:29145884
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
11. 11. Sallis JF, Cerin E, Kerr J, Adams MA, Sugiyama T, Christiansen LB, et al. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: findings from the International Physical Activity and Environment Network (IPEN) Adult Study. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:119–39. pmid:32237990
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
12. 12. Velasquez AJ, Douglas JA, Guo F, Robinette JW. What predicts how safe people feel in their neighborhoods and does it depend on functional status? SSM Popul Health. 2021;16:100927. pmid:34604498
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
13. 13. Velasquez AJ, Douglas JA, Guo F, Robinette JW. In the eyes of the beholder: Race, place and health. Front Public Health. 2022;10(1):920637. pmid:36033798
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
14. 14. Carlson JA, Sallis JF, Jankowska MM, Allison MA, Sotres-alvarez D, Roesch SC, et al. Neighborhood built environments and Hispanic/ Latino adults’ physical activity in the U. S.: The Hispanic community health study/ study of Latinos community and surrounding areas study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2022;160.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
15. 15. Gallo LC, Savin KL, Jankowska MM, Roesch SC, Sallis JF, Sotres-Alvarez D, et al. Neighborhood environment and metabolic risk in hispanics/latinos from the hispanic community health study/study of Latinos. Am J Prev Med. 2022;63(2):195–203. pmid:35365395
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
16. 16. Gebreab SY, Hickson DA, Sims M, Wyatt SB, Davis SK, Correa A, et al. Neighborhood social and physical environments and type 2 diabetes mellitus in African Americans: The Jackson Heart Study. Health Place. 2017;43:128–37. pmid:28033588
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
17. 17. Sallis JF, Glanz K. Physical activity and food environments: solutions to the obesity epidemic. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):123–54. pmid:19298418
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
18. 18. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social determinants of health and diabetes: A scientific review. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(1):258–79.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
19. 19. Mooney SJ, Joshi S, Cerdá M, Kennedy GJ, Beard JR, Rundle AG. Contextual correlates of physical activity among older adults: a Neighborhood Environment-Wide Association Study (NE-WAS). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(4):495–504. pmid:28154108
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
20. 20. Mooney SJ, Hurvitz PM, Moudon AV, Zhou C, Dalmat R, Saelens BE. Residential neighborhood features associated with objectively measured walking near home: Revisiting walkability using the Automatic Context Measurement Tool (ACMT). Health Place. 2020;63:102332. pmid:32543423
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
21. 21. Lynch SM, Mitra N, Ross M, Newcomb C, Dailey K, Jackson T, et al. A Neighborhood-Wide Association Study (NWAS): example of prostate cancer aggressiveness. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0174548. pmid:28346484
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
22. 22. Daviglus ML, Talavera GA, Avilés-Santa ML, Allison M, Cai J, Criqui MH, et al. Prevalence of major cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases among Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse backgrounds in the United States. JAMA. 2012;308(17):1775–84. pmid:23117778
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
23. 23. LaVange LM, Kalsbeek W, Sorlie PD, Aviles-Santa L, Kaplan RC, Barnhart J, et al. Sample design and cohort selection in the hispanic community health study/study of Latinos. Annu Epidemiol. 2010;20(8):642–9.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
24. 24. Sorlie PD, Avilés-Santa LM, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kaplan RC, Daviglus ML, Giachello AL, et al. Design and implementation of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(8):629–41. pmid:20609343
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
25. 25. Schneiderman N, Llabre M, Cowie CC, Barnhart J, Carnethon M, Gallo LC, et al. Prevalence of diabetes among Hispanics/Latinos from diverse backgrounds: the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2233–9. pmid:25061138
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
26. 26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Type 2 Diabetes. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type2.html. 2021.
27. 27. World Health Organisation WHO. Diabetes. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes. 2022.
28. 28. Dendup T, Feng X, Clingan S, Astell-Burt T. Environmental risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(1):78. pmid:29304014
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
29. 29. Heidemann C, Niemann H, Paprott R, Du Y, Rathmann W, Scheidt-Nave C. Residential traffic and incidence of Type 2 diabetes: the German Health Interview and Examination Surveys. Diabet Med. 2014;31(10):1269–76. pmid:24773140
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
30. 30. Lanki T, Hampel R, Tiittanen P, Andrich S, Beelen R, Brunekreef B, et al. Air pollution from road traffic and systemic inflammation in adults: a cross-sectional analysis in the European ESCAPE Project. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(8):785–91. pmid:25816055
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
31. 31. Chen J-C, Schwartz J. Metabolic syndrome and inflammatory responses to long-term particulate air pollutants. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(5):612–7. pmid:18470293
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
32. 32. Ccami-Bernal F, Soriano-Moreno DR, Fernandez-Guzman D, Tuco KG, Castro-Díaz SD, Esparza-Varas AL, et al. Green space exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus incidence: A systematic review. Health Place. 2023;82:103045. pmid:37159977
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
Citation: Smith CM, Spalt EW, Gallo LC, Carlson J, Allison M, Sotres-Alvarez D, et al. (2025) Neighborhood environment and incident diabetes, a neighborhood environment-wide association study (‘NE-WAS’): Results from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). PLoS One 20(7): e0329282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329282
About the Authors:
Cara M. Smith
Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7172-2997
Elizabeth W. Spalt
Roles: Data curation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3470-9954
Linda C. Gallo
Roles: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, United States of America
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-5888
Jordan Carlson
Roles: Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Mercy Hospital and University of Missouri, Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, United States of America
Matthew Allison
Roles: Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America
Daniela Sotres-Alvarez
Roles: Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
Christina Cordero
Roles: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Psychology and Behavioral Medicine Research Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States of America
Qibin Qi
Roles: Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States of America
Earle C. Chambers
Roles: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States of America
Martha Daviglus
Roles: Funding acquisition
Affiliation: Institute for Minority Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Amber Pirzada
Roles: Funding acquisition
Affiliation: Institute for Minority Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Gregory A. Talavera
Roles: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, United States of America
Robert Kaplan
Roles: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States of America
Joel D. Kaufman
Roles: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Stephen J. Mooney
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, United States of America
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
1. Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2017;389(10085):2239–51. pmid:28190580
2. Office of Minority Health. Diabetes and Hispanic Americans. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=63. 2021.
3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Hispanic or Latino People and Type 2 Diabetes. 2022.
4. Cordero C, Schneiderman N, Llabre MM, Teng Y, Daviglus ML, Cowie CC, et al. Diabetes Incidence Among Hispanic/Latino Adults in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). Diabetes Care. 2022;45(6):1482–5. pmid:35506707
5. Kolb H, Martin S. Environmental/lifestyle factors in the pathogenesis and prevention of type 2 diabetes. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):131. pmid:28720102
6. Leal C, Chaix B. The influence of geographic life environments on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review, a methodological assessment and a research agenda. Obes Rev. 2011;12(3):217–30. pmid:20202135
7. Papas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, Klassen AC. The built environment and obesity. Epidemiol Rev. 2007;29:129–43. pmid:17533172
8. Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1186:125–45. pmid:20201871
9. Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74–81. pmid:18977112
10. Smith M, Hosking J, Woodward A, Witten K, MacMillan A, Field A, et al. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport - an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):158. pmid:29145884
11. Sallis JF, Cerin E, Kerr J, Adams MA, Sugiyama T, Christiansen LB, et al. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: findings from the International Physical Activity and Environment Network (IPEN) Adult Study. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:119–39. pmid:32237990
12. Velasquez AJ, Douglas JA, Guo F, Robinette JW. What predicts how safe people feel in their neighborhoods and does it depend on functional status? SSM Popul Health. 2021;16:100927. pmid:34604498
13. Velasquez AJ, Douglas JA, Guo F, Robinette JW. In the eyes of the beholder: Race, place and health. Front Public Health. 2022;10(1):920637. pmid:36033798
14. Carlson JA, Sallis JF, Jankowska MM, Allison MA, Sotres-alvarez D, Roesch SC, et al. Neighborhood built environments and Hispanic/ Latino adults’ physical activity in the U. S.: The Hispanic community health study/ study of Latinos community and surrounding areas study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2022;160.
15. Gallo LC, Savin KL, Jankowska MM, Roesch SC, Sallis JF, Sotres-Alvarez D, et al. Neighborhood environment and metabolic risk in hispanics/latinos from the hispanic community health study/study of Latinos. Am J Prev Med. 2022;63(2):195–203. pmid:35365395
16. Gebreab SY, Hickson DA, Sims M, Wyatt SB, Davis SK, Correa A, et al. Neighborhood social and physical environments and type 2 diabetes mellitus in African Americans: The Jackson Heart Study. Health Place. 2017;43:128–37. pmid:28033588
17. Sallis JF, Glanz K. Physical activity and food environments: solutions to the obesity epidemic. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):123–54. pmid:19298418
18. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social determinants of health and diabetes: A scientific review. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(1):258–79.
19. Mooney SJ, Joshi S, Cerdá M, Kennedy GJ, Beard JR, Rundle AG. Contextual correlates of physical activity among older adults: a Neighborhood Environment-Wide Association Study (NE-WAS). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(4):495–504. pmid:28154108
20. Mooney SJ, Hurvitz PM, Moudon AV, Zhou C, Dalmat R, Saelens BE. Residential neighborhood features associated with objectively measured walking near home: Revisiting walkability using the Automatic Context Measurement Tool (ACMT). Health Place. 2020;63:102332. pmid:32543423
21. Lynch SM, Mitra N, Ross M, Newcomb C, Dailey K, Jackson T, et al. A Neighborhood-Wide Association Study (NWAS): example of prostate cancer aggressiveness. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0174548. pmid:28346484
22. Daviglus ML, Talavera GA, Avilés-Santa ML, Allison M, Cai J, Criqui MH, et al. Prevalence of major cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases among Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse backgrounds in the United States. JAMA. 2012;308(17):1775–84. pmid:23117778
23. LaVange LM, Kalsbeek W, Sorlie PD, Aviles-Santa L, Kaplan RC, Barnhart J, et al. Sample design and cohort selection in the hispanic community health study/study of Latinos. Annu Epidemiol. 2010;20(8):642–9.
24. Sorlie PD, Avilés-Santa LM, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kaplan RC, Daviglus ML, Giachello AL, et al. Design and implementation of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(8):629–41. pmid:20609343
25. Schneiderman N, Llabre M, Cowie CC, Barnhart J, Carnethon M, Gallo LC, et al. Prevalence of diabetes among Hispanics/Latinos from diverse backgrounds: the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). Diabetes Care. 2014;37(8):2233–9. pmid:25061138
26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Type 2 Diabetes. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/type2.html. 2021.
27. World Health Organisation WHO. Diabetes. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes. 2022.
28. Dendup T, Feng X, Clingan S, Astell-Burt T. Environmental risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(1):78. pmid:29304014
29. Heidemann C, Niemann H, Paprott R, Du Y, Rathmann W, Scheidt-Nave C. Residential traffic and incidence of Type 2 diabetes: the German Health Interview and Examination Surveys. Diabet Med. 2014;31(10):1269–76. pmid:24773140
30. Lanki T, Hampel R, Tiittanen P, Andrich S, Beelen R, Brunekreef B, et al. Air pollution from road traffic and systemic inflammation in adults: a cross-sectional analysis in the European ESCAPE Project. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(8):785–91. pmid:25816055
31. Chen J-C, Schwartz J. Metabolic syndrome and inflammatory responses to long-term particulate air pollutants. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(5):612–7. pmid:18470293
32. Ccami-Bernal F, Soriano-Moreno DR, Fernandez-Guzman D, Tuco KG, Castro-Díaz SD, Esparza-Varas AL, et al. Green space exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus incidence: A systematic review. Health Place. 2023;82:103045. pmid:37159977
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025 Smith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing among the Hispanic/Latino population. Type 2 diabetes incidence rates vary between neighborhoods, but no single aspect of the neighborhood environment is known to cause type 2 diabetes. Using data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos cohort of 16,415 Hispanic/Latino adults in four major US cities, we conducted a neighborhood environment-wide association study to identify neighborhood measures or clusters of measures associated with diabetes incidence. Two-hundred and four neighborhood measures were calculated at the census tract level or within a 1-km buffer of participants’ residential addresses. Independent covariate-adjusted and survey-weighted Poisson regressions were run for each neighborhood measure and incident diabetes. Principal component analysis of neighborhood measures was conducted to reduce dimensionality. No coherent pattern of neighborhood measures or principal component scores were associated with diabetes incidence within the cohort, though established individual-level risk factors such as age and family history were strongly associated with diabetes incidence. Results from our analysis did not indicate specific neighborhood measures, clusters, or patterns. Individual, rather than neighborhood, factors distinguish incident diabetes cases from non-cases.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer