Conceptualizing, measuring and evaluating constructs of the adolescent neighbourhood social environment: A systematic review

Much work in the late 1990s and early 2000s highlighted the emerging role of the neighbourhood social environment in public health research. These works described the influence of neighbourhood social processes on individual health and well-being outcomes and highlighted the need for a better understanding of how we conceptualise and measure the social environment (i.e., Earls & Carlson, 2001; Morrow, 1999, 2001; Yen & Syme, 1999). Overall, the neighbourhood social environment is defined as the social dimensions of the neighbourhoods in which we live (Yen & Syme, 1999). However, the complexity of these social dimensions leads to ambiguity of definitions that creates difficulties in measurement (Earls & Carlson, 2001). In a seminal piece of work, Sampson, Morenoff, and GannonRowley (2002) synthesised the evidence on the role of the social environment on health behaviours and outcomes, with a particular focus on adolescents. The authors provided a summary of neighbourhood social mechanisms, extending beyond more traditional measures of neighbourhood deprivation, and drew several conclusions regarding future research directions. They concluded that, relating to issues of consistency in how measures were operationalised and theoretically situated, questions remained as to whether the neighbourhood social environment is best measured by a few higher-level constructs or several sub-domains. Additionally, while community-based surveys were found to yield valid measurements of the neighbourhood social environment, methods for evaluating ecological (aggregate) measures, termed ‘ecometrics’, were not widespread, though needed in a multilevel framework (Earls & Carlson, 2001; Sampson et al., 2002). More than a decade later much inconsistency and debate still exists regarding how best to conceptualise and measure the neighbourhood social environment, particularly when studying adolescents. Among adolescents, choice and freedom to engage in behaviours is influenced, at least in part, by the neighbourhood social environments to which they are exposed (Morrow, 1999, 2001). Adolescents are active agents within their neighbourhoods; however, their agencies within the wider social and physical environments are widely overlooked in studies that utilize adult-centred measures (Morrow, 1999; Paiva et al., 2014). This signifies a methodological weakness as adult perceptions of the neighbourhood cannot fully represent the perceptions that young people have of their environment (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004). Some evidence of this is provided by studies that examine both perceptions of adolescents and adults and find differing results on outcomes (Byrnes, Chen, Miller, & Maguin, 2007; Byrnes et al., 2013; DeHaan, Boljevac, & Schaefer, 2009). Therefore, it is reasoned that adolescent-centred approaches are more theoretically valid than adult measures of the adolescent environment, as young people may have different perceptions of their neighbourhood than adults, are generally exposed to fewer neighbourhoods due to a relative lack of mobility, and may have access to different areas within their neighbourhood. The use of good quality instruments is necessary when examining associations between adolescents’ neighbourhood social environments and their health and well-being. Different approaches are taken to conceptualisation, operationalisation and measurement which might explain inconsistent research findings (Sampson et al., 2002). Reviews examining the social environment and similar health outcomes (i.e. alcohol use) have found conflicting results between studies (Bryden, Roberts, Petticrew, & McKee, 2013; Jackson, Denny, & Ameratunga, 2014) which may be due to considerable heterogeneity in how the neighbourhood social environment is measured. The neighbourhood social environment is often measured at different levels. The individual level represents the survey respondent's perception of their neighbourhood, while the neighbourhood level represents the combined characteristics of all survey respondents in that area. Ecological neighbourhood level measures are relevant to research of neighbourhoods and health so that the researcher can address health outcomes that vary across places, independent of the resident's individual level characteristics (Hawe & Shiell, 2000). Moreover, neighbourhood level exposures may be mediated by the corresponding individual level measure. As social processes occur at a neighbourhood level, measurement of ecological constructs represents a collective phenomenon; consequently, neighbourhood level measures are essential to better understand what makes some places more or less healthy and inform place-based interventions (Sampson et al., 2002). The aim of this systematic review was to identify measures currently