Neighborhood Concentrated Disadvantage and Dating Violence among Urban Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Neighborhood Social Processes.

The link between relationship violence and aspects of neighborhood concentrated disadvantage (e.g., percent of unemployed adults, percent of families below poverty level), has been established. However, the literature examining neighborhood social processes, including informal social control and social cohesion, in relation to adolescent dating violence has shown mixed results with a limited theoretical foundation and methodology. Using a social disorganization theoretical framework, this study examined the mediating role of these neighborhood social processes in the relation between concentrated disadvantage and adolescent dating violence within an urban context. Participants included 605 adult residents in 30 census tracts and 203 adolescents from neighborhoods on the West and South sides of Chicago. Neighborhood-level concentrated disadvantage was measured via Census data, adult residents reported on neighborhood social processes, and youth reported on dating violence. Informal social control was negatively associated with dating violence, and social cohesion was positively associated with dating violence. A multilevel mediation model showed that concentrated disadvantage was related to higher levels of dating violence via lower levels of informal social control. These results extend social disorganization theory to dating violence within an urban context, while also highlighting the important role of neighborhood processes on relationship violence. Implications for research and intervention programming are discussed.

The Cost of Increasing Physical Activity and Maintaining Weight for Midlife Sedentary African American Women.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the marginal costs of increasing physical activity and maintaining weight for a lifestyle physical activity program targeting sedentary African American women. METHODS: Outcomes included change in minutes of total moderate to vigorous physical activity, leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity and walking per week, and weight stability between baseline and maintenance at 48 weeks. Marginal cost-effectiveness ratios (MCERs) were calculated for each outcome, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using a bootstrap method. The analysis was carried out from the societal perspective and calculated in 2013 US dollars. RESULTS: For the 260 participants in the analysis, program costs were $165 ± $19, and participant costs were $164 ± $35, for a total cost of $329 ± $49. The MCER for change in walking was $1.50/min/wk (95% CI 1.28-1.87), for change in moderate to vigorous physical activity was $1.73/min/wk (95% CI 1.41-2.18), and for leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity was $1.94/min/wk (95% CI 1.58-2.40). The MCER for steps based on the accelerometer was $0.46 per step (95% CI 0.30-0.85) and weight stability was $412 (95% CI 399-456). CONCLUSIONS: The Women's Lifestyle Physical Activity Program is a relatively low-cost strategy for increasing physical activity. The marginal cost of increasing physical activity is lower than for weight stability. The participant costs related to time in the program were nearly half the total costs, suggesting that practitioners and policymakers should consider the participant cost when disseminating a lifestyle physical activity program into practice.