title: Neighborhood foreclosures and self-rated health among breast cancer survivors.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We determined the association of neighborhood foreclosure risk on the health status of a statewide sample of breast cancer survivors (n = 1047) and the extent to which covariates accounted for observed associations.
  
  
  METHODS
  Measures of self-rated health and several covariates were obtained by telephone interview 1 year after diagnosis. We used the federal Housing and Urban Development agency's estimated census-tract foreclosure-abandonment-risk score and multilevel, logistic regression to determine the association of foreclosure risk (high, moderate versus low) with self-rated health (fair-poor versus good, very good, excellent) and whether covariates could explain the observed association.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Women who resided in high-foreclosure-risk (HFR) areas were 2.39 times (95% CI: 1.83-3.13) more likely to report being in fair-poor health than women who lived in low-foreclosure-risk areas. The odds ratio (OR) was reduced for women who lived in high-foreclosure-risk versus low-foreclosure-risk areas after adjusting for income (HFR OR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.01-3.15), physical activity (HFR OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.98-3.08), and perceived neighborhood conditions (HFR OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.02-3.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Breast cancer survivors who lived in census tracts with high- versus low-foreclosure risk reported poorer health status. This association was explained by differences in household income, physical activity, and perceived neighborhood conditions.
authors: Division of Health Behavior Research, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Box 8504, 4444 Forest Park Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63108, USA. mschootm@dom.wustl.edu
authors: Mario
authors: M
authors: Schootman
authors: Anjali D
authors: AD
authors: Deshpande
authors: Sandi L
authors: SL
authors: Pruitt
authors: Donna B
authors: DB
authors: Jeffe
references: Soc Sci Med. 2005 Sep;61(6):1135-50
references: 15970226
references: J Aging Health. 1993 May;5(2):179-93
references: 10125443
references: Am J Public Health. 1996 Dec;86(12):1798-801
references: 9003141
references: Am J Public Health. 2009 Oct;99(10):1833-9
references: 19696373
references: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 20;23(27):6499-507
references: 16170159
references: J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96
references: 6668417
references: Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Nov;14(11):1747-9
references: 18976560
references: Med Care. 1996 Jan;34(1):73-84
references: 8551813
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 May;57(5):339-43
references: 12700216
references: J Aging Health. 2009 Mar;21(2):231-43
references: 19204381
references: BMJ. 1996 Aug 24;313(7055):449-53
references: 8776310
references: PLoS Med. 2009 Jun 16;6(6):e1000087
references: 19529755
references: Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Sep 02;1:37
references: 14498988
references: Stat Med. 1998 Oct 15;17(19):2265-81
references: 9802183
references: J Health Soc Behav. 1997 Mar;38(1):21-37
references: 9097506
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Nov 1;152(9):874-83
references: 11085400
references: Public Health Rep. 1994 Sep-Oct;109(5):665-72
references: 7938388
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Dec;58(12):1316-9
references: 16291477
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Sep 1;156(5):471-82
references: 12196317
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Nov;63(11):949-51
references: 19578031
references: Science. 1997 Aug 15;277(5328):918-24
references: 9252316
references: Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705-14
references: 2035047
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Oct;61(10):853-61
references: 17873220
references: J Clin Oncol. 1993 Apr;11(4):783-93
references: 8478672
references: Am J Public Health. 1990 Apr;80(4):446-52
references: 2316767
references: Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Apr 15;155(8):755-9
references: 11943694