ABSTRACT
Objectives: This paper systematically reviews how spatial analysis has been used to measure relationships between access to the built environment and Allostatic Load (AL) or biomarkers relevant to the stress pathway. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) facilitate objective measurement of built environment access that may explain unequal health outcomes linked to living in stressful environments. Methods: Systematic review, search date 13 July 2022 with methods published a priori. Included studies that quantitatively assessed associations between GIS measures of neighborhood attributes and biomarkers of stress. Results: 23 studies from 14 countries were included having used GIS measures to assess relationships between access to the built environment and biomarkers relevant to AL, with 17 being cross-sectional and 6 longitudinal. Just 2 studies explicitly assessed associations between GIS measures and AL, but 21 explored biomarkers relevant to the stress pathway. GIS was used to calculate density (how much of x within y) and proximity (how far from a to b) measures. Conclusion: GIS measures of greenspace, the food environment, area-level demographics, and land-use measures were found to influence biomarkers relevant to the stress pathway, highlighting the utility of this approach. GIS use is extremely limited when measuring the built environment and its influence on AL but has been widely used to consider effects on individual biomarkers of stress. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=348355], identifier [CRD42022348355].
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Accommodations with shared washing facilities increase the risks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for people experiencing rough sleeping and evidence on what interventions are effective in reducing these risks needs to be understood. METHODS: Systematic review, search date 6 December 2022 with methods published a priori. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Database and supplemented with grey literature searches, hand searches of reference lists and publication lists of known experts. Observational, interventional and modelling studies were included; screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate and narrative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Fourteen studies from five countries (USA, England, France, Singapore and Canada) were included. Ten studies were surveillance reports, one was an uncontrolled pilot intervention, and three were modelling studies. Only two studies were longitudinal. All studies described the effectiveness of different individual or packages of mitigation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a weak evidence base, the research suggests that combined mitigation measures can help to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission but are unlikely to prevent outbreaks entirely. Evidence suggests that community prevalence may modify the effectiveness of mitigation measures. More longitudinal research is needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021292803.
