Abstract 4134079: Neighborhood-Level Indices of Social Disadvantage and Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health

Background: Several area-level indices exist that integrate a variety of social drivers of health. However, whether certain indices better capture neighborhood-level variability in cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) outcomes is not well known. Aims: We sought to examine the associations of census tract-level indices of social disadvantage with CKM outcomes. Methods: Exposures for the analysis included seven indices of social disadvantage (ADI, COI, EJI, NDI, SDI, SREI, SVI) based on census tract-level data from the 2010-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) and census tract-level median household income from the 2015-2019 ACS data. Outcomes included the census tract-level prevalence of CKM outcomes (obesity, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease [CHD], and stroke) from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All indices and median income were standardized, and we used linear regression to examine the associations between each census tract-level social measure and CKM outcomes, adjusted for population size and median age. Next, we calculated the △r 2 in adjusted models for the association of median income with each CKM outcome when each index was added. Results: Among 65,476 US census tracts, median (IQR) population size was 4068 (2969, 5374), age was 39 years (35, 44), and household income was $58,870 (44276, 79802). Median income as well as each index was significantly associated with census tract-level prevalence of each CKM outcome assessed (p < 0.05). The r 2 (Panel A) and △r 2 values (Panel B) varied for each of the social measures and CKM outcomes, with higher r 2 values when each index was individually added to median income compared with income alone. For example, for CHD, the r 2 ranged between 0.39 to 0.67 and △r 2 ranged from 0.01 to 0.10. Conclusions: Neighborhood-level measures of social disadvantage are differentially associated with CKM outcomes, with a large proportion of the variability explained by median income. Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each index and comparison with median income can inform the prioritization of measures for specific outcomes.