Grantee Research Project Results
2012 Progress Report: Analysis and Action on the Environmental Determinants of Health and Health Disparities
EPA Grant Number: NIMHD006Title: Analysis and Action on the Environmental Determinants of Health and Health Disparities
Investigators: Glover, Saundra , Wilson, Sacoby M. , Williams, Edith , Brandt, Heather , Zhang, Hongmei
Institution: University of South Carolina at Columbia , University of Maryland - College Park
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: August 1, 2011 through July 31, 2014
Project Period Covered by this Report: September 21, 2011 through September 20,2012
Project Amount: $669,258
RFA: Transdisciplinary Networks of Excellence on the Environment and Health Disparities (2012) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice , Human Health
Objective:
The objective of the research is to expand the NIMHD-funded Center of Excellence’s (CoE) capacity to engage communities of color impacted by health disparities with a focus on environmental justice and environmental health disparity issues within the State of South Carolina. Also, to take the resident expertise in environmental, social and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina-Institute for Partnership to Eliminate Health Disparities ( USC-IPEHD) and University of Maryland (UMD) and an expansive community network to conduct environmental, community-based participatory and translational research focused on addressing environmental stressors in South Carolina. The activities proposed in this project will:
1) build a program to assess environmental health disparities in the state through data collected by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) Program;
2) assess community perception of environmental determinants of cancer risk and disparities in rural and urban communities in South Carolina using a mixed methods approach; and
3) engage and train members of community-based organizations that represent environmental justice communities and environmental health disparity populations in the use of the block assessment methodology to identify ecological stressors and intervene to address disparities in burden, exposure, and health.
Progress Summary:
Beginning in March 2012 and continuing through the six-month reporting period, the Project #1 team met biweekly. Analyses were performed on available environmental health data to assess disparities of environmental hazards in South Carolina and disparities in health risks between different populations based on socio-demographic profile including race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status and geography (rural vs urban location). A spatial database has been expanded to include not only locations of environmental hazards and locally unwanted land uses but also includes salutogenic and pathogenic infrastructure (check cashing locations, payday lenders, banks, schools, gas stations, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, pawn shops, liquor stores). The team has primarily examined the disparities in exposure to air toxics in cancer risks in South Carolina using the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). The team has assessed differences in cancer risk in relation to segregation, deprivation as indicated by the Townsend Index, and rural-urban area. In addition, Dr. Zhang is leading efforts to assess possible racial/ethnic and SES disparities in the distribution of Superfund sites, brownfields, and NPDES permitted facilities in the state of South Carolina. Results will be available Fall 2012.
Simple Regression
|
Multivariate Regression
|
|||||||
|
|
Coefficient (p-Value)
|
R2-adj
|
Coefficient (p-Value)
|
Urban Area %
|
Interact
|
correlation*
|
R2-adj
|
Race/ Ethnicity
|
Black %
|
0.021
|
0
|
-0.088**
|
0.071**
|
0.002**
|
0.028
|
0.46
|
Hispanic %
|
0.293**
|
0.01
|
0.291
|
0.147**
|
-0.006*
|
0.225**
|
0.42
|
|
Non-white %
|
0.032**
|
0.01
|
-0.085**
|
0.064**
|
0.002**
|
0.076*
|
0.46
|
|
Rich
|
Owned Home %
|
-0.252**
|
0.3
|
-0.045
|
0.182**
|
-0.001**
|
-0.564**
|
0.47
|
Per Cap Income
|
0.934*
|
0
|
3.674**
|
0.246**
|
-0.063**
|
0.219**
|
0.45
|
|
Median HH Income
|
0.019
|
0
|
2.349**
|
0.266**
|
-0.038**
|
0.066
|
0.47
|
|
Poor
|
Poverty %
|
0.116**
|
0.02
|
-0.275**
|
0.047**
|
0.005**
|
0.06
|
0.48
|
Unemployment %
|
0.496**
|
0.03
|
-0.05
|
0.485**
|
0.01**
|
0.098**
|
0.44
|
|
Home Pre-1950 %
|
0.19**
|
0.08
|
-0.124**
|
0.086**
|
0.003**
|
0.202**
|
0.47
|
|
Education
|
< HS %
|
-0.096**
|
0.02
|
-0.247**
|
0.023
|
0.004**
|
-0.257**
|
0.46
|
Urban-Rural
|
Urban area %
|
0.133**
|
0.41
|
----
|
----
|
----
|
----
|
----
|
Interaction
|
Poverty black %
|
0.043
|
0
|
-0.152**
|
0.047**
|
0.004**
|
-0.022
|
0.48
|
LessHS black %
|
0.029
|
0
|
-0.453**
|
0.078**
|
0.01**
|
-0.051
|
0.49
|
|
*correlation between sociodemographic variables and percent urban area
|
Census
|
HR %
|
RR
|
Census
|
HR %
|
RR
|
Census
|
HR %
|
RR
|
Black %
|
Per Cap Income
|
Home Pre-1950 %
|
||||||
Q 1
|
5.1
|
-
|
Q 1
|
12.9
|
-
|
Q 1
|
4.6
|
-
|
Q 2
|
8.8
|
1.7(0.8-3.5)
|
Q 2
|
6.5
|
0.5(0.3-0.9)
|
Q 2
|
5.7
|
1.3(0.6- 2.8)
|
Q 3
|
10.2
|
2.0(1.0-4.0)
|
Q 3
|
10.2
|
0.8(0.5-1.3)
|
Q 3
|
4.7
|
1.0(0.4- 2.4)
|
Q 4
|
14.3
|
2.8(1.5-5.5)
|
Q 4
|
8.8
|
0.7(0.4-1.2)
|
Q 4
|
23.7
|
5.2(2.7- 9.9)
|
Hispanic %
|
Median HH
Income |
Urban area %
|
||||||
Q 1
|
6.5
|
-
|
Q 1
|
18.5
|
-
|
Q 1
|
1.7
|
-
|
Q 2
|
6
|
0.9(0.4-1.9)
|
Q 2
|
7.4
|
0.4(0.2-0.7)
|
Q 2
|
4
|
2.3(0.6- 8.9)
|
Q 3
|
12
|
1.9(1.0-3.5)
|
Q 3
|
5.6
|
0.3(0.2-0.6)
|
Q 3
|
11.4
|
6.7(2.0-22.2)
|
Q 4
|
13.8
|
2.1(1.2-3.9)
|
Q 4
|
6.9
|
0.4(0.2-0.7)
|
Q 4
|
30.3
|
17.8(5.7-55.8)
|
Non-white %
|
Poverty %
|
Poverty black %
|
||||||
Q 1
|
4.1
|
-
|
Q 1
|
5.5
|
-
|
Q 1
|
7
|
-
|
Q 2
|
8.3
|
2.0(0.9-4.3)
|
Q 2
|
7.5
|
1.4(0.7-2.8)
|
Q 2
|
6.1
|
0.9(0.4-1.8)
|
Q 3
|
10.7
|
2.6(1.2-5.4)
|
Q 3
|
5.1
|
0.9(0.4-2.1)
|
Q 3
|
5.1
|
0.7(0.3-1.6)
|
Q 4
|
15.2
|
3.7(1.8-7.5)
|
Q 4
|
19.6
|
3.6(1.9-6.6)
|
Q 4
|
20.4
|
2.9(1.6-5.2)
|
Owned Home %
|
Unemployment %
|
< HS black %
|
||||||
Q 1
|
26.3
|
-
|
Q 1
|
8.8
|
-
|
Q 1
|
7.6
|
-
|
Q 2
|
6.5
|
0.2(0.14-0.4)
|
Q 2
|
7
|
0.8(0.4-1.5)
|
Q 2
|
9.1
|
1.2(0.6-2.3)
|
Q 3
|
2.8
|
0.1(0.05-0.2)
|
Q 3
|
6.1
|
0.7(0.3-1.4)
|
Q 3
|
7.7
|
1.0(0.5-2.0)
|
Q 4
|
1.4
|
0.1(0.02-0.2)
|
Q 4
|
16.7
|
1.9(1.1-3.2)
|
Q 4
|
15.2
|
2.0(1.1-3.6)
|
Note: Less than a high school education was not included because all of the confidence intervals for relative risk included 1.
|
Table 3. Regression of all sources of cancer risk on sociodemographic composition, deprivation, and segregation
Factors of interest
|
Simple Regression
|
||||||
Coefficient (pValue)
|
R2
|
Coefficient (pValue)
|
Urban Effect
|
Interaction
|
correlation
|
R2
|
|
Segregations & Townsend indices
|
|||||||
Diversity
|
-4.087*
|
0
|
-11.693**
|
5.747**
|
19.622**
|
-0.067*
|
0.44
|
Isolation
|
1.461
|
0
|
-8.507**
|
6.323**
|
17.609**
|
0.009
|
0.47
|
Dissimilarity
|
0.934
|
0
|
0.136
|
13.013**
|
1.019
|
0.008
|
0.42
|
Relative Cluster
|
-0.486
|
0
|
1.161
|
13.757**
|
-3.447*
|
0.01
|
0.43
|
Delta
|
-4.194*
|
0
|
2.127
|
15.03**
|
-6.539
|
-0.106**
|
0.42
|
Townsend
|
0.9**
|
0.09
|
-0.614**
|
12.874**
|
1.321**
|
0.301**
|
0.45
|
Demographic Variables
|
|||||||
Black %
|
0.021
|
0
|
-0.088**
|
7.119**
|
0.178**
|
0.028
|
0.46
|
Unemployment%
|
0.096**
|
0.01
|
-0.045
|
12.473**
|
0.104
|
0.109**
|
0.41
|
Renter %
|
0.239**
|
0.28
|
0.019
|
6.904**
|
0.135**
|
0.546**
|
0.47
|
Crowd room %
|
-0.034
|
0
|
-0.749**
|
9.81**
|
0.991**
|
0.03
|
0.43
|
No car %
|
0.244**
|
0.08
|
-0.263**
|
7.68**
|
0.487**
|
0.215**
|
0.47
|
Urban-Rural Effects
|
|||||||
Urban area %
|
13.307**
|
0.41
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
*: pValue<0.05;** pValue<0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Relative risk comparison between Q1 and Q4 for different cancer risk sources.
Pilot Project 3: “Training of Community Members to Assess Ecological Stressors and Environmental Disparities Using the Block Assessment Methodology”
Future Activities:
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 24 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
salutogenic and pathogenic infrastructure; environmental hazards in South Carolina; Superfund sites; Brownfields; Photovoice (documentary photography), environmental health survey, community-based approaches; community block assessmentRelevant Websites:
Coordinating Center of Excellence in the Social Promotion of Health Equity through Research, Education, and Community Engagement (CCE-SPHERE) – http://www.sc.edu/CCE-SPHERE/ Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.