Residential Segregation, Health-Promoting Organizations, and Health Outcomes

People who live in segregated neighborhoods are often sicker and die younger. Yet, the reasons for these poor health outcomes are not well understood. This study examines the relationships among neighborhood segregation, the presence of health-promoting organizations, and the health outcomes of residents.

Health care providers, supermarkets, gyms, and other health-promoting organizations play an important role in community vitality, and the health and well-being of residents. This project traces the spread of these types of organizations across different types of urban areas over time. The research also examines how the availability of health-promoting organizations affect families’ use of and satisfaction with health care services.

The study advances understanding of the relationship between segregation and public health, informing decision-making and interventions in public health and city planning.

This two-part study examines: 1) the distribution of community organizations and service providers across urban neighborhoods; and 2) how that distribution affects residents’ health-related outcomes. First, using restricted micro-data from the United States Census Bureau and Centers for Disease Control (CDC), researchers examine the distribution of health-promoting community organizations over time across neighborhoods in metropolitan areas in the U.S. from 1990 to 2020.

A longitudinal approach enables analysis of how changes in neighborhood composition relate to the number of health-promoting organizations over time. Second, the study uses restricted survey data from the National Survey of Children’s Health paired with neighborhood-level contextual data to analyze how families use health care services, how that is patterned by what is available to them in their communities, and how this impacts satisfaction with their health provider and overall health.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.