
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39209497
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987
bmjopen-2023-079987
Original Research
Epidemiology
1692
1506
Associations between dimensions of the social environment and cardiometabolic health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2699-2303
Abreu Taymara C 123t.c.abreu@amsterdamumc.nl

Beulens Joline WJ 123j.beulens@amsterdamumc.nl

Heuvelman Fleur 123f.heuvelman@amsterdamumc.nl

Schoonmade Linda J 4l.schoonmade@vu.nl

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-721X
Mackenbach Joreintje D 123j.mackenbach@amsterdamumc.nl

1 Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 Upstream Team, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
4 University Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

None declared.

Taymara CAbreu; t.c.abreu@amsterdamumc.nl
2024
28 8 2024
14 8 e07998718 9 2023
30 7 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Abstract

Objectives

The social environment (SE), that is, the social relationships and social context in which groups of people live and interact, is an understudied element of the broader living environment which impacts health. We aim to summarise the available evidence on the associations between SE and cardiometabolic disease (CMD) outcomes.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to 28 February 2024.

Eligibility criteria

We included studies for which determinants were SE factors such as area-level deprivation and social network characteristics and outcomes were type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases incidence and prevalence.

Data extraction and synthesis

Titles and abstracts and full text were screened in duplicate. Data appraisal and extraction were based on the study protocol published in PROSPERO. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We synthesised the data through vote counting and meta-analyses.

Results

From 10 143 records screened, 281 studies reporting 1108 relevant associations are included in this review. Of the 384 associations included in vote counting, 271 (71%) suggested that a worse SE is associated with a higher risk of CMD. 14 meta-analyses based on 180 associations indicated that worse SE was associated with increased odds of CMD outcomes, with 4 of them being statistically significant. For example, more economic and social disadvantage was associated with higher heart failure risk (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; n=18; I2=95%). With the exception of two meta-analyses for men, meta-analysed sex-specific associations consistently showed results in the same direction as the overall meta-analyses.

Conclusion

Worse SE seems to be associated with increased odds of CMD outcomes, although certain SE dimensions are underexplored in relation to CMD.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42021223035.

hypertension
epidemiology
social support
cardiac epidemiology
diabetes & endocrinology
systematic review
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 874627 Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research 024.004.017 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This systematic review employed a comprehensive scope along with a robust search strategy (eg, using extensive search terms, searching across multiple databases, conducting backward reference checks and applying a time-unrestricted search).

The broad scope of the search strategy acknowledges the different dimensions of the social environment that cannot be (re)viewed in isolation.

The decision not to include studies investigating mortality outcomes, while justifiable due to the varying roles of social environment on health and disease, may have potentially limited the depth of insights provided by this review.

The quality assessment tools used in this review are susceptible to some degree of subjectivity, despite the authors’ efforts to mitigate its impact through piloting the application of the tools and adaptation of guidelines with specific decision rules.

Due to the challenge of converting and harmonising continuous data into categorical data, measures that were not operationalised as dichotomous or categorical variables were not included in the meta-analysis. In contrast, the vote counting method included all eligible associations.

Introduction

Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs), including type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), are the leading cause of death worldwide.1 Despite a reduction in the burden of CMD in high-income countries over the last decades, the global burden has increased.2 3 In 2017, the global disability-adjusted life-years attributed to diabetes and CVD were 68 million4 and 366 million,3 respectively. Given the magnitude of CMD burden and the disproportionate burden in low-income and middle-income countries, it is of utmost importance to identify risk factors to prevent CMD. Proximal risk factors for CMD include unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, for instance, unhealthy dietary intake,5 6 sedentary behaviour,7 8 alcohol consumption,9 smoking10 11 and poor sleeping habits.12 They influence CMD outcomes through biological responses such as obesity, high low-density lipoprotein and high blood pressure levels.13 14 Unhealthy lifestyle behaviours are in turn influenced by more distal risk factors at the environmental level. These distal risk factors contribute to a substantial part of the disease burden, nevertheless, a number of them have not been identified yet.15 Among the environmental-level risk factors is the social environment, which is generally understood as the social relationships and social context in which groups of people live and interact. The different dimensions of the social environment operate in various spheres of influence, such as within a network of friends and in the neighbourhood context.16

We use figure 1 to display the hypothesised pathways through which dimensions of the social environment affect CMD. This figure is adapted from the WHO framework on the social determinants of health17 and builds on the work of Kepper et al.18 The framework describes how structural determinants such as the socioeconomic and political context shape the social environment, and how social environmental factors enhance or constrain lifestyle behaviours, which may, in turn, generate biological responses that will increase or decrease CMD health. As is true for all frameworks, this is a simplified reflection of the undoubtedly complex reality. Previous work has highlighted the use of inconsistent terminology and conceptualisation of the dimensions of the social environment, with definitions and measurements unable to differentiate between various social phenomena or capture their magnitude.161821

Figure 1 Conceptual framework on social environment and cardiometabolic health.

There is ample evidence for an association of dimensions of the social environment with lifestyle factors. For example, a meta-analysis found that higher social support was associated with better sleep quality,22 individuals with stronger social networks had higher fruit and vegetable consumption,23 and stronger social ties buffered against stress.24 In addition, higher levels of neighbourhood crime have been linked to higher smoking rates,25 higher socioeconomic status to more physical activity26 27 and higher social capital to lower alcohol consumption.28 The literature base seems to suggest that these associations trickle through to CMD. Indeed, a number of studies have focused on social support,29 30 social cohesion,31 32 perception of safety, violent crime, and signs of incivility,3335 and residential segregation36 37 as risk factors for CMD. Moreover, evidence on the relationship between social capital and CMD has grown in the last two decades3841 and the evidence on the impact of area-level deprivation on CMD risk is substantive.4248 However, no systematic overview exists of the extent to which dimensions of the social environment are associated with CMD risk. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis that summarises the knowledge on the link between dimensions of the social environment and CMD incidence or prevalence.

Methods

Data sources and searches

The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (www.prisma-statement.org).49 50 The research protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (ID: CRD42021223035). Post hoc amendments to the eligibility criteria were added to the protocol and registered with the PROSPERO database (ie, clarifications and a correction related to the exclusion of ecological studies) before data extraction began. We systematically searched the bibliographic databases PubMed, Scopus and the Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 29 February 2024 (TCA and LS). The search strategy—developed together with the library information specialist (LS)—comprised three blocks: (1) “cardiometabolic diseases” (eg, myocardial infarction, hyperlipidaemia, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); (2) “dimensions of the social environment” (eg, social cohesion, area-level deprivation) and (3) “contextual level” of the social environment (eg, neighbourhood, network). We used free-text terms in all databases. For PubMed, the search terms also included indexed terms from MeSH. Duplicate articles were removed using EndNote. We manually searched the reference lists of the articles included for other relevant publications when they included at least one term from the contextual-level search block. The full search strategy for all databases can be found in online supplemental file 1. Due to the large number of papers included, we divided the results over two twin reviews according to whether the outcome under investigation was a cardiometabolic ‘hard outcome’ or ‘risk factor’ for CMD (eg, HbA1c, blood lipids and metabolic syndrome), the latter—based on a search run in February 2021—was published in Social Science & Medicine—Population Health.51

Study selection

We reviewed original studies that examined associations between dimensions of the social environment and CMD incidence or prevalence in adults. The scope of this review was limited to exposures that assessed properties of the social context, that is, social factors assessed at the environmental level (eg, area-level income), but not those that assessed properties of individuals (eg, individual-reported pleasure derived from social network). We did, however, include social factors that were assessed at the individual level but reflect a property of the social context in which an individual is inserted (eg, one’s social network size). We defined CMD as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertensive diseases, stroke, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries, and unspecified CVD.

All titles and abstracts of each study were screened independently by two authors (TCA and JDM or JB). We piloted the screening process in a random subsample of 100 studies. We used the mobile apps Covidence and Rayyan to manage and organise the screening process.52 Following title-abstract screening, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility by two authors independently (TCA and JDM or JB). Cohen’s kappa coefficients were computed for title and abstract and full-text screening to indicate the agreement between pairs of reviewers. A third author (JDM or JB) resolved any inconsistencies in study eligibility. See PRISMA flow diagram of study inclusion in figure 2.

Figure 2 PRISMA flow diagram of study inclusion. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

We included studies if they (1) studied an adult population or followed children and adolescents beyond 18 years of age; (2) studied incidence or prevalence of CMD outcomes; (3) covered any measure of the social environment that potentially influences the risk of CMD; (4) were (quantitative or qualitative) observational or intervention studies and (5) were written in English. We excluded studies if they (1) were limited to children and adolescents; (2) studied obesity as an outcome—given the recent evidence available for this outcome5355; (3) studied CMD with little or no influence of lifestyle behaviours (eg, congenital heart disease, rheumatic heart disease and type 1 diabetes) as outcomes; (4) focused on treatment, medication or management of disease outcomes; (5) were conducted in samples of patient populations or pregnant women; (6) were health economic evaluations, simulation studies or publications that did not report original scientific research or (7) studied mortality outcomes alone or did not differentiate between morbidity and mortality outcomes. Considering that the vast majority of diabetes cases in the adult general population are of type 2, we assumed that studies that did not explicitly specify the type of diabetes have included type 2 diabetes mellitus cases and were, therefore, considered eligible. However, if studies knowingly did not differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes cases, they were excluded.

Data extraction

Two authors (TCA or FH) performed data extraction from eligible studies, according to a standardised protocol and a predefined list of variables, which included study and sample characteristics as well as information on exposure, outcome and effect measures. A second author (JDM) qualitatively appraised the data extraction of a random subsample of 10% of the studies included; any inconsistencies were discussed and agreement was reached. We categorised social environment factors into one of the eight dimensions depicted in figure 1, that is, economic and social disadvantage includes, for instance, area-level poverty and deprivation, social relationships and norms include support from the social network, crime and safety include crimes per capita, social cohesion and social capital include neighbourhood collective efficacy and social trust, disorders and incivilities include neighbourhood disorder, civic participation and engagement include participation in social activities, discrimination and segregation include percentage of migrants in an area and sense of place/belonging includes place attachment and sense of community. Exposures were classified into one of the eight dimensions following the terminology employed by the included studies. When an exposure variable could not be clearly assigned to a category, we classified it based on the variable measurement and operationalisation. We categorised outcomes into one of seven categories namely type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertensive diseases, stroke, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries, and unspecified CVD, following the International Classification of Diseases definitions.56 In case of missing data on effect measures, we contacted study investigators. There is clear evidence for sex differences in CMD risk,57 as well as in social relations.58 We, therefore, extracted data on sex-specific effect metrics when available. We extracted data from the model in which effect measures were adjusted to the highest degree (ie, fully adjusted models), except in cases where adjustments were made for potential confounders (eg, lifestyle behaviours).

Quality assessment

Two authors (TCA or FH) assessed quality/risk of bias of all the studies included and a second author (JDM) qualitatively appraised the data extraction of a random subsample of 10% of the studies included; any inconsistencies were discussed and agreement was reached. The criteria and ratings for each domain varied depending on the study design. For observational studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess cohort and case–control studies59 while to assess cross-sectional studies we used an adapted version of the NOS tool.60 We drew an overall quality score for each study based on seven or eight items divided into three domains namely selection, comparability and exposure (for case–control) or outcome (for cohorts and cross-sectional studies). For intervention studies, we used the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomised studies.61 62 ROBINS-I assesses the quality of the studies based on seven domains (namely bias due to confounding and selection of participants, bias in classification of interventions, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes and selection of the reported result) while RoB 2 is based on five domains (namely randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported result).

Ratings reflect the risk of bias in the association between the relevant social environmental factor and CMD, even if this was not the primary research question of a study. Since no threshold for overall study quality is established for NOS, we rated a study as ‘low quality’ when it received less than 50% of all possible points and was, therefore, excluded from the vote count and meta-analyses. Prior to the quality assessment of included studies, we piloted the process in a random subsample of 10 studies. We generated a summary of quality assessment scores per tool per domain across all studies included.

Data synthesis

We synthesised data extracted with two approaches namely vote counting for an overview of the direction of evidence,63 and meta-analysis for a statistical summary of the effect estimates. In both methods, we did not include associations from low-quality studies and associations from the dimension discrimination and segregation (eg, proportion of ethnic minority in a neighbourhood). The latter was excluded because its exposure measures were highly heterogeneous in operationalisation and poorly defined, and thus the associations were not comparable for vote counting and meta-analysis purposes. Moreover, we did not include effect measures from case–control (n=5) and intervention studies (n=6) given the low number of associations reported and limited comparability with observational studies. We classified exposure categories as indicating ‘better’ and ‘worse’ social environment. For instance, ‘worse’ social environment for the dimension economic and social disadvantage was the group experiencing the most deprivation and ‘better’ social environment for the dimension social relationships and norms was the category with the most social support.

Vote counting

In accordance with Cochrane’s handbook for systematic reviews of interventions,63 we synthesised the overall effect measures of included studies using a vote counting strategy whereby studies were classified according to the direction (but not statistical significance) of effect estimates. We did not include associations in vote counting when (1) they were sex-specific, rather than overall associations; (2) a direction of effect could not be established or (3) the effect estimate and reference category were not comparable (eg, reference category was the ‘middle’ category). We presented the results of vote counting in a direction-of-effect plot, for which we categorised effect estimates into one of two directions: (1) worse social environment is associated with an increased risk of CMD or (2) better social environment is associated with an increased risk of CMD. When the direction of effect was not directly reported by the study investigators, we defined it based on the data extracted.

Meta-analysis

We performed meta-analyses when three or more associations were available per combination of social environment dimension and CMD outcome. We did not include associations in meta-analysis when (1) there were less than three associations for a given exposure-and-outcome combination; (2) the data reported were not suitable for meta-analysis (eg, missing variance measure); (3) the effect estimates were not reported as ratios (eg, ORs, relative risk and HRs); (4) the exposure measures were not operationalised as dichotomous or categorical variables (eg, continuous exposure) and (5) reference category did not allow for comparison (eg, reference category was the ‘middle’ category). In the case of categorical exposure, we pooled the ratios comparing the two extreme categories of the exposure gradient (eg, highest quantile of area-level income vs lowest quantile of area-level income) in association with a CMD outcome. The exposures reference categories were harmonised and defined as the ‘best-off’ category. We performed random-effects meta-analysis which accounted for the multilevel structure of the data (ie, a single study can report more than one relevant association), based on a t-distribution. We performed subgroup analysis for sex-specific effect measures when data were available. We performed sensitivity analysis (1) according to the studies’ country income level,64 including only studies performed in LMIC, (2) including only longitudinal studies, (3) including studies of low quality only for the two most commonly examined combinations of exposure–outcome (ie, economic and social disadvantage and hypertensive diseases and economic and social disadvantage and type 2 diabetes mellitus) and (4) for the effect of meta-analysing only OR effect estimates instead of all ratios combined. We generated forest plots for each meta-analysis performed and assessed heterogeneity with I2 statistics accounting for the dependency among associations originating from the same study. Results are expressed as ORs and 95% CIs. Analyses were performed in R V.4.3.2,65 using the functions rma.mv, forest and funnel of the Metafor package.66

Funnel plots

Funnel plots were generated to qualitatively assess publication bias. We examined funnel plots for the exposure-and-outcome combinations of more than five associations and followed the same criteria applied to inclusion of associations in the meta-analysis.

Patient and public involvement

None.

Results

From 10 143 records screened for title and abstract, 640 full articles were screened (online supplemental file 2) and of these, 281 were included in this review. 59% (n=165) of the included studies applied a cross-sectional design, 37% (n=105) a longitudinal design, 2% (n=6) were (quasi-)experimental and 2% (n=5) were case–control studies. 73% (n=204) of the studies were published in the past 10 years, and all studies were conducted in high-income or middle-income countries (88%, n=246 and 12%, n=35, respectively) (online supplemental table 1). No qualitative studies were included. 23 studies were conducted exclusively in women (n=19) or men (n=4). The Cohen’s kappa value for title and abstract screening ranged between 0.52 and 0.58 (moderate agreement; depending on the combination of authors involved) and for full-text screening was 0.66 (substantial agreement).67 Among the studies included, 1108 relevant associations were reported, of which 66% (n=728) were overall associations and 34% (n=380) were sex-specific associations (online supplemental table 2). From the overall associations, 53% (n=384) were eligible for vote counting and 27% (n=196) for meta-analysis.

Of all social environment dimensions, the largest number of associations was related to the dimension economic and social disadvantage (61% of all associations), followed by social relationships and norms (19%) and discrimination and segregation (9%). Less evidence was found for the remaining dimensions (ie, social cohesion and social capital, crime and safety, civic participation and engagement and disorder and incivilities) in relation to the outcomes investigated and no evidence was found on the dimension sense of place/belonging (online supplemental table 2). Among the CMD outcomes considered, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertensive diseases were the only outcomes investigated in association with all dimensions of the social environment (34% and 25% of all associations included, respectively). Other commonly observed outcomes were ischaemic heart disease (17%) and stroke (11%), which were both investigated in association with all dimensions except disorder and incivilities. The remaining CMD outcomes (ie, unspecified CVD, heart failure and diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries) were less commonly investigated and explored in relation to fewer social environment dimensions (online supplemental table 2).

Quality assessment

Of all included studies, 23% (n=66) were considered of low quality (onlinesupplemental tables 3A3E). Of these, 58 were cross-sectional studies and 5 were longitudinal studies. Overall, cohort studies (n=102; 79% of points scored) were of higher quality than cross-sectional studies (n=107; 60% of points scored) (figures3 4), which often did not report sample calculations and did not use validated tools to assess the social environmental factors and thus performed poorly on the ‘sample size’ and ‘exposure ascertainment’ items, respectively. Moreover, several cross-sectional studies insufficiently adjusted for confounders and the statistical analysis applied did not account for the multilevel structure of the data used. Of the four case–control studies, one was assessed as low quality. Randomised studies (n=2) were of low quality and quasi-randomised studies (n=4) were of low/moderate quality.

Figure 3 Summary of quality assessment across studies using New-Ottawa Castle tool Quality Assessment Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies

Figure 4 Summary of quality assessment across studies using New-Ottawa Castle tool Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies

Vote counting

Vote counting was possible for 30 exposure-and-outcome combinations (figure 5). All social environment dimensions were found in association with at least one outcome, except for the dimension sense of place/belonging and the dimension discrimination and segregation, which was not included in the vote counting. In 21 of the 30 combinations, the majority of the effect estimates indicated an increase in the risk of CMD with worse social environment. More specifically, this direction notably prevailed among the associations between economic and social disadvantage and all CMD outcomes. In contrast, the direction of effects was mostly inconsistent for the dimension social relationships and norms. In 11 of the 384 associations, the effect estimate was not indicating any direction (eg, OR=1.00).

Figure 5 Vote count based on direction of effect for associations between social environment dimensions and cardiometabolic disease outcomes. CVD, cardiovascular disease.

Meta-analysis

Meta-analyses were possible for 14 exposure-and-outcome combinations (onlinesupplemental figure 1A1N; figure 6). All social environment dimensions were meta-analysed in relation to at least one outcome, except for the dimensions disorder and incivilities and sense of place/belonging, which did not have sufficient eligible associations, and the dimension discrimination and segregation, which was a priori excluded in the meta-analysis. The largest number of meta-analyses was possible for the dimension economic and social disadvantage (n=6). Regarding the outcomes, only diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries did not provide sufficient eligible data for meta-analysis.

Figure 6 Summary of forest plots (random-effects model) for the meta-analyses of social environment dimensions and cardiometabolic health outcomes. CVD, cardiovascular disease.

We observed an overall trend suggesting that worse social environment was associated with an increased risk of CMD outcomes in all but one meta-analysis (ie, social cohesion and social capital and hypertensive diseases). Despite this tendency, only 4 out of 14 meta-analyses were statistically significant. Three of these four were related to economic and social disadvantage dimension: more economic and social disadvantage was associated with a higher risk/prevalence of hypertensive diseases (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42; n=26; I2=99%), type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; n=28; I2=97%) and heart failure (OR 1.58, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.61; n=18; I2=95%). Also, worse social relationships and norms were associated with a higher risk/prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.62; n=12; I2=86%). Overall, the magnitude of the pooled effects ranged from OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.08) for social cohesion and social capital and hypertensive diseases to OR 1.58 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.61) for economic and social disadvantage and heart failure. Generally, there was high heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, with 9 out of 14 meta-analyses having I2 values >75%. Insufficient evidence was available to conduct meta-analysis for the remaining exposure-and-outcome combinations.

It was possible to perform seven sex-specific meta-analyses for both men and women (table 1). 12 out of 14 sex-specific pooled effects showed the same direction of effect as the overall meta-analyses, that is, worse social environment was associated with increased risk/prevalence of CMD outcomes while 2 meta-analyses for men showed OR smaller than 1 (opposite direction as main meta-analysis). Estimates were more often statistically significant for men than for women, with two out of seven meta-analyses for men showing statistically significant results. Among men, more economic and social disadvantage was associated with a higher risk/prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45; n=14; I2=94%) and ischaemic heart disease (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.33; n=23; I2=80%) and worse social relationships and norms were associated with a higher risk/prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.60; n=6; I2=25%). The magnitude of the pooled effects was somewhat different for men and women, with ORs differing more than 10% between women and men in four out of six comparable meta-analyses. Heterogeneity seemed to be lower in meta-analysis performed among men, with three out of seven meta-analyses having I2 values >75% while among women six out of seven meta-analyses had I2 values >75%.

Table 1 Summary sex-specific pooled effects and between-study variance estimates and 95% CIs from meta-analysis models

Exposure	Outcome	n	OR	95% CI		Total I2	
Women							
 Economic and social disadvantage	Hypertensive diseases	11	1.03	0.86 to 1.23		91%	
 Economic and social disadvantage	Diabetes mellitus	16	1.31	0.94 to 1.82		97%	
 Economic and social disadvantage	Ischaemic heart diseases	23	1.24	0.91 to 1.69		95%	
 Social relationships and norms	Hypertensive diseases	5	1.17	0.71 to 1.93		81%	
 Social relationships and norms	Diabetes mellitus	9	1.14	0.94 to 1.38		96%	
 Social relationships and norms	Heart failure	3	1.26	0.53 to 2.99		85%	
 Crime and safety	Hypertensive diseases	3	1.12	0.63 to 1.98		6%	
Men							
 Economic and social disadvantage	Hypertensive diseases	3	1.18	0.71 to 1.95		66%	
 Economic and social disadvantage	Diabetes mellitus	14	1.25	1.07 to 1.45	**	94%	
 Economic and social disadvantage	Ischaemic heart diseases	23	1.19	1.07 to 1.33	**	80%	
 Social relationships and norms	Hypertensive diseases	5	1.38	0.61 to 3.10		94%	
 Social relationships and norms	Diabetes mellitus	6	1.32	1.08 to 1.60	*	25%	
 Social relationships and norms	Ischaemic heart diseases	3	0.96	0.56 to 1.63		1%	
 Crime and safety	Hypertensive diseases	3	0.98	0.38 to 2.50		69%	
* p≤0.05; **p≤0.01.

For sensitivity analysis of studies performed in middle-income countries (online supplemental table 4), only three meta-analyses were possible, including at most seven associations each. The pooled effect for economic and social disadvantage and type 2 diabetes mellitus among middle-income countries (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.13; n=4; I2=99.9%) was found to be in the opposite direction of that observed for all countries combined (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; n=28; I2=97%). The other two meta-analyses among middle-income countries had similar magnitude compared with all countries combined; however, the 95% CIs were wider among middle-income countries.

For sensitivity analysis of longitudinal studies (n=11 meta-analyses; online supplemental table 5), no major differences in pooled effects in comparison with the meta-analysis including both longitudinal and observational studies were observed. Three out of four pooled effects that were statistically significant in the main meta-analysis remained statistically significant.

Sensitivity analysis, including studies of low quality compared with the main analysis, where these were excluded, was conducted for the two most commonly examined combinations of exposure–outcome. These analyses showed no major differences compared with the main meta-analysis, despite the increase in the number of associations included (ie, economic and social disadvantage and type 2 diabetes mellitus: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36; n=40; I2=95% and economic and social disadvantage and hypertensive diseases: OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34; n=35; I2=99%).

Sensitivity analysis with OR effect estimates only (n=9 meta-analyses) revealed no major differences in pooled effects in comparison with the respective meta-analysis generated with all ratios combined (online supplemental table 6). Three out of nine meta-analyses performed differed more than 10% from the respective meta-analysis with all ratios combined but maintained the same direction of effect (eg, economic and social disadvantage and heart failure: OR (main analysis): 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61 vs OR (only OR): 1.15, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.92). Generally, there was also high heterogeneity among meta-analyses performed with OR effect estimates only, with seven out of nine meta-analyses having I2 values >75%.

Funnel plots

We found substantial asymmetry in the funnel plots (n=9), particularly for some exposure-and-outcome combinations, for instance, economic and social disadvantage and hypertensive diseases (onlinesupplemental figure 2A2I). This may suggest publication bias but may also reflect study heterogeneity.68

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that being exposed to a worse social environment is consistently associated with an increased risk of CMD, with worse economic and social disadvantage being significantly associated with a higher risk of hypertensive diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure, and worse social relationships and norms with a higher risk of ischaemic heart disease. Both the meta-analyses and vote counting pointed in the same direction. Our findings also illustrate that even though effect estimates were approximately similar for men and women, they were less heterogeneous among men. We included 281 studies reporting on 1108 associations that explored the relationship between dimensions of the social environment and CMD risk in adults worldwide. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive work to date on the aforementioned associations.

Most evidence was available for the social environment dimension economic and social disadvantage, followed by social relationships and norms, and the outcome type 2 diabetes mellitus, followed by hypertensive diseases and ischaemic heart disease. Other reviews also concluded that economic and social disadvantage was the most commonly studied social environmental dimension when investigated in relation to physical activity and obesity.18 Less evidence was available for some other dimensions such as disorder and incivilities and sense of place/belonging. This could be due to the fact that research on dimensions other than economic and social disadvantage in relation to CMD risk is only recently emerging, as confirmed by the majority of studies published in the past 10 years.

In relation to the magnitude of the effect estimates generated by the meta-analysis, the effect sizes ranged from OR=0.99 for social cohesion and social capital in relation to hypertensive diseases, to OR=1.58 for economic and social disadvantage and heart failure. The difference in effect sizes cannot be explained by the extent to which social environment dimensions could be considered as more or less distal. A consistent pattern for strong associations with a specific outcome was not visible as well. One could argue that living in a deprived neighbourhood or a lack of social relationships leads to stress, rising blood pressure and hypertensive diseases ‘directly’—resulting in larger effect sizes—whereas the level of civic participation may lead to stress via reduced social cohesion only—resulting in smaller effect sizes. However, we found no indication for this explanation.

There are few meta-analyses on social environmental factors and CMD risk in the literature. The few meta-analyses available are not entirely comparable to the methodology we adopted and used different operationalisation of social environment factors and outcomes.6971 However, the magnitude of the pooled effects observed by them is similar to what we found. For instance, a meta-analysis focusing on area-level socioeconomic indexes and incident heart failure found associations to be significant and in line with our findings.69 Moreover, a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found a statistically significant association between poor ‘social relationships’ and coronary heart disease and stroke.70 While observing the same direction of effect we found, a meta-analysis pooling results from studies performed in Australia and New Zealand found no statistically significant relationship for the exposure ‘social health’ (ie, social isolation, lack of social support and loneliness) in relation to coronary heart disease and stroke combined.71 These findings correspond to our observation that the economic and social disadvantage dimension showed on average stronger pooled effects than other dimensions.

Results were overall consistent across meta-analyses and vote counting but not for all dimensions of the social environment. Differences in consistency across the two synthesis methods may have arisen from the fact that the vote counting approach considered all eligible associations, including the ones with continuous exposures while the meta-analysis only considered extreme categories of exposure. The meta-analysis of continuous exposures was not performed due to the complexity of converting continuous data into categorical data and harmonising different effect estimates (eg, beta and OR), and thus only associations comparing CMD risk between extreme categories of exposure were included. The inconsistency between the two methods was most pronounced for the dimension social relationships and norms. It seems that the adverse effects of having no friends versus having at least one friend on CMD—as observed in the meta-analyses—reflect no linear, dose–response relation. Indeed, when measures from this dimension are treated in a continuous, linear fashion (eg, 1 unit increase in the number of friends), its relationship with CMD risk becomes inconsistent. This may suggest that some social environment factors could be associated with CMD risk in a curvilinear relationship or potentially have a threshold effect (eg, no additional benefit to CMD health after a certain exposure level), as opposed to a linear relationship (eg, increase on continuous exposure measure is associated with a graded linear change in CMD risk). Such non-linear relationships have been hypothesised, for instance, in the relationship between a number of social contacts and certain health outcomes72 73; however, this non-linearity has not been extensively explored in relation to CVD74 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, further exploring the relationship between certain social environmental factors and CMD risk with adequate statistical approaches and exposure operationalisation is needed.

The majority of studies included were cross-sectional observational studies, which hamper the application of a ‘life course’75 or ‘exposome’76 perspective which assumes that the biological responses to adverse social environments would mainly arise when individuals are exposed to them for a longer duration of time. Indeed, included longitudinal studies were generally of better quality than the cross-sectional studies; however, for the exposure-and-outcome combinations where sensitivity analysis could be conducted exclusively using longitudinal studies, we did not observe marked differences. Considering this lack of evidence on ‘cumulative exposure’ to adverse social environments coupled with the fact that the studies included mostly focused on the impact of single social environment factors on the risk of single CMD outcomes, our results are likely a lower bound conservative estimate of the influence of the social environment on CMD risk. Given the existing evidence on links between the social environment and other health outcomes such as frailty,77 mental health78 and general health,79 the importance of the social environment goes beyond its effects on cardiometabolic health. There is thus a need for further research and design and implementation of effective policies and interventions in this arena.

Another weakness of the ascertained evidence is the heterogeneity in definitions and operationalisation of exposure measures, contributing to high levels of heterogeneity in some of our findings. Similarly, previous reviews observed the use of a multitude of measures to assess the social environment.18 26 For instance, a scoping review on measures of social environment for walkability mapped 20 different surveys, which employed 182 unique items.80 We dealt with the aforementioned heterogeneity by following the call for more consistency in the social environment literature,18 and thus combining all social environment factors that were categorised into the same dimension for the purposes of synthesis of findings. Such an approach hampers the interpretability of the pooled effect estimates but it allowed us to explore the combined effect of a given dimension on CMD risk. While a discussion regarding the definition and measurement of specific social environment constructs is beyond the scope of this review, others provide a comprehensive overview of the considerations therein.81

The issue with heterogeneity was particularly problematic for the discrimination and segregation dimension, where the variety of exposure measures adopted did not allow for the synthesis of the findings across different studies. For example, exposure ascertainment varied from simplistic approaches (eg, percentage of a minority group in an area) to more sophisticated methods (eg, spatial autocorrelation measures that take into account the racial/ethnic composition of surrounding areas). Moreover, studies often took into account two groups (eg, blacks vs whites) while geographical areas often have a more diverse composition. We also would argue that ‘discrimination and segregation’ measures are highly context-dependent,82 83 as a 1% increase in the population belonging to an ethnic minority group has a very different meaning for areas with a 2% ethnic minority population vs a 50% ethnic minority population.

Moreover, subgroup analyses by sex suggest that the heterogeneity found in the overall analyses might be partly due to sex differences and that the social environment may affect men and women differently, indicating that sex differences should be further investigated.

The main strength of this review is its large and comprehensive scope and broad systematic search of the literature on three bibliographic databases in addition to backward reference checks and searches without time restriction. This robust search strategy allowed us to capture as much relevant evidence as possible, and thus dilute the impact of the heterogeneity on social environmental factors in retrieval and synthesises of findings. Nevertheless, this review has some limitations. We excluded studies assessing mortality outcomes based on the fact that the social environment can play different roles across a disease course (eg, from prevention to mortality), and our scope was limited to CMD morbidity. However, this criterion also excluded studies combining morbidity and mortality outcomes. Also, the quality assessment tools used here have known limitations.84 We reduced the impact of these by piloting the application of the tools and by adapting specific guidelines and decision rules for each item.

Implications

Future research should invest in standardising the definitions of social environment dimensions and harmonise the operationalisation of social environmental factors, using validated tools which allow for comparability of findings from different contexts and times. Besides a few of the included studies having adopted validated indexes (eg, the Australian Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas85 and the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index86), the use of validated tools to assess social environmental factors was rare. We highlight that the conceptualisation of such tools would ideally consider the fact that an individual’s perception of the social environment can have implicit or unconscious effects,87 and individuals may not be able to recall them in self-reported measures based on explicit perception. Second, the use of well-designed longitudinal studies, natural experiments and intervention studies, where possible, could help make causal inferences on the association between social environment and CMD risk. Such studies must consider, for instance, the various pathways and mechanisms that lead to CMD onset, with the potential for risk accumulation over the life course. Third, the role of the online social environment has not been extensively investigated in relation to CMD. In this regard, not only individual’s exposure to social environment factors such as social interactions in social networking platforms is of relevance, but also individuals’ exposure to paid marketing of unhealthy products while interacting with peers.88 Future research could, therefore, focus on the links between such social and commercial determinants of health, especially in view of the great increase in social media use observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.89 Fourth, the generalisability of the results to underexplored dimensions such as crime and safety and sense of place/belonging, to low-income and middle-income countries, to specific demographic subpopulations (eg, sex-stratified analysis), and potentially vulnerable groups based on race/ethnicity should be a topic of investigation.

Translating our findings to policy implications is notoriously challenging, especially given the largely observational nature of the evidence. Nevertheless, we demonstrated consistent evidence on the association between economic disadvantage and increased CMD risk, which reinforces the clear health potential of interventions and policies aimed at reducing poverty and deprivation. For instance, the Moving To Opportunity study successfully demonstrated that moving from high-poverty to low-poverty neighbourhoods reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes after 10–15 years.47 In addition, public policies and interventions should target social and norms, for instance, through early-life or marital social relationship interventions90 91 and through the screening of social circumstances (eg, ‘polysocial risk scores’92 or psychosocial screening protocols93) within the healthcare context. Yet, it may be difficult to put social relationships high on the list of public health priorities.94

In conclusion, findings from 14 meta-analyses across 180 associations suggest that worse social environment is associated with an increased risk of CMDs, particularly the association between economic and social disadvantage and hypertensive diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure, and between social relationships and norms and ischaemic heart disease. However, there was high heterogeneity within the meta-analyses and the existing literature varies notably in terminology and operationalisation of social environment measures. Moreover, certain social environmental dimensions such as social cohesion and social capital, crime and safety, civic participation and engagement, disorder and incivilities, and sense of place/belonging are underexplored in relation to CMD risk.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 1

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 2

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 3

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 4

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 5

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 6

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 7

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 8

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987 online supplemental file 9

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Ilonca Vaartjes (University Medical Center Utrecht) for insightful discussions on this article. We thank Dr. Robin Vernooij (University Medical Center Utrecht) for insightful discussions on meta-analysis and Dr. Sharon Remmelzwaal (Amsterdam University Medical Center) for insightful discussions on data extraction and meta-analysis.

Data availability statement

No data are available.

Review Process File
28 08 2024

Funding: This work was supported by EXPOSOME-NL (NWO grant number 024.004.017) and EXPANSE (grant agreement number 874627). EXPOSOME-NL is funded through the Gravitation program of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. EXPANSE received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079987).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
==== Refs
References

1 Vos T Lim SS Abbafati C et al Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Lancet 2020 396 1204 22 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 33069326
2 Roth GA Mensah GA Johnson CO et al Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019: update from the GBD 2019 study J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 76 2982 3021 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010 33309175
3 Kyu HH Abate D Abate KH et al Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet 2018 392 1859 922 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32335-3 30415748
4 Lin X Xu Y Pan X et al Global, regional, and national burden and trend of diabetes in 195 countries and territories: an analysis from 1990 to 2025 Sci Rep 2020 10 14790 10.1038/s41598-020-71908-9 32901098
5 Hemmingsen B Gimenez-Perez G Mauricio D et al Diet, physical activity or both for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 12 CD003054 10.1002/14651858.CD003054.pub4 29205264
6 Mente A de Koning L Shannon HS et al A systematic review of the evidence supporting A causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease Arch Intern Med 2009 169 659 69 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.38 19364995
7 Lacombe J Armstrong MEG Wright FL et al The impact of physical activity and an additional behavioural risk factor on cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality: a systematic review BMC Public Health 2019 19 900 10.1186/s12889-019-7030-8 31286911
8 Fogelholm M Physical activity, fitness and fatness: relations to mortality, morbidity and disease risk factors. A systematic review Obes Rev 2010 11 202 21 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00653.x 19744231
9 Roerecke M Rehm J Irregular heavy drinking occasions and risk of ischemic heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Epidemiol 2010 171 633 44 10.1093/aje/kwp451 20142394
10 Hackshaw A Morris JK Boniface S et al Low cigarette consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: meta-analysis of 141 cohort studies in 55 study reports BMJ 2018 363 doi j5855 10.1136/bmj.j5855
11 Pan A Wang Y Talaei M et al Relation of active, passive, and quitting smoking with incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015 3 958 67 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00316-2 26388413
12 Anothaisintawee T Reutrakul S Van Cauter E et al Sleep disturbances compared to traditional risk factors for diabetes development: Systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep Med Rev 2016 30 11 24 10.1016/j.smrv.2015.10.002 26687279
13 Stanhope KL Goran MI Bosy-Westphal A et al Pathways and mechanisms linking dietary components to cardiometabolic disease: thinking beyond calories Obes Rev 2018 19 1205 35 10.1111/obr.12699 29761610
14 Lin X Zhang X Guo J et al Effects of exercise training on cardiorespiratory fitness and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials J Am Heart Assoc 2015 4 e002014 10.1161/JAHA.115.002014 26116691
15 Vermeulen R Schymanski EL Barabási A-L et al The exposome and health: Where chemistry meets biology Science 2020 367 392 6 10.1126/science.aay3164 31974245
16 Barnett E Casper M A definition of “social environment.” Am J Public Health 2001 91 465 65 465 10.2105/ajph.91.3.465a
17 Solar O Irwin A A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health 2010 Available https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44489/?sequence=1
18 Kepper MM Myers CA Denstel KD et al The neighborhood social environment and physical activity: a systematic scoping review Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2019 16 124 10.1186/s12966-019-0873-7 31815626
19 Diez Roux AV Mair C Neighborhoods and health Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010 1186 125 45 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05333.x 20201871
20 Choi M Mesa-Frias M Nuesch E et al Social capital, mortality, cardiovascular events and cancer: a systematic review of prospective studies Int J Epidemiol 2014 43 1895 920 10.1093/ije/dyu212 25369975
21 Braveman P Gottlieb L The Social Determinants of Health: It’s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes Public Health Rep 2014 129 19 31 10.1177/00333549141291S206
22 Kent de Grey RG Uchino BN Trettevik R et al Social support and sleep: A meta-analysis Health Psychol 2018 37 787 98 10.1037/hea0000628 29809022
23 Choi YJ Ailshire JA Crimmins EM Living alone, social networks in neighbourhoods, and daily fruit and vegetable consumption among middle-aged and older adults in the USA Public Health Nutr 2020 23 3315 23 10.1017/S1368980020002475 32792025
24 Thoits PA Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health J Health Soc Behav 2011 52 145 61 10.1177/0022146510395592 21673143
25 Shareck M Ellaway A Neighbourhood crime and smoking: the role of objective and perceived crime measures BMC Public Health 2011 11 930 10.1186/1471-2458-11-930 22168151
26 McNeill LH Kreuter MW Subramanian SV Social environment and physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence Soc Sci Med 2006 63 1011 22 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.012 16650513
27 Fisher KJ Li FZ Michael Y et al Neighborhood-level influences on physical activity among older adults: A multilevel analysis J Aging Phys Act 2004 12 45 63 10.1123/japa.12.1.45 15211020
28 Ng Fat L Scholes S Jivraj S The relationship between drinking pattern, social capital, and area-deprivation: findings from the health survey for England J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2017 78 20 9 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.20 27936361
29 Kumari M Head J Marmot M Prospective study of social and other risk factors for incidence of type 2 diabetes in the whitehall II study Arch Intern Med 2004 164 1873 10.1001/archinte.164.17.1873 15451762
30 Chaix B Isacsson S-O Råstam L et al Income change at retirement, neighbourhood-based social support, and ischaemic heart disease: results from the prospective cohort study "Men born in 1914" Soc Sci Med 2007 64 818 29 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.10.018 17126973
31 Kim ES Hawes AM Smith J Perceived neighbourhood social cohesion and myocardial infarction J Epidemiol Community Health 2014 68 1020 6 10.1136/jech-2014-204009 25135074
32 Christine PJ Auchincloss AH Bertoni AG et al Longitudinal associations between neighborhood physical and social environments and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus JAMA Intern Med 2015 175 1311 20 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2691 26121402
33 Sundquist K Theobald H Yang M et al Neighborhood violent crime and unemployment increase the risk of coronary heart disease: A multilevel study in an urban setting Soc Sci Med 2006 62 2061 71 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.051 16203075
34 Mujahid MS Diez Roux AV Morenoff JD et al Neighborhood characteristics and hypertension Epidemiology 2008 19 590 8 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181772cb2 18480733
35 Steve SL Tung EL Schlichtman JJ et al Social disorder in adults with type 2 diabetes: Building on race, place, and poverty Curr Diab Rep 2016 16 72 10.1007/s11892-016-0760-4 27319322
36 Kershaw KN Albrecht SS Racial/ethnic residential segregation and cardiovascular disease risk Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 2015 9 ARTN 10.1007/s12170-015-0436-7
37 Kershaw KN Pender AE Racial/ethnic residential segregation, obesity, and diabetes mellitus Curr Diab Rep 2016 16 108 10.1007/s11892-016-0800-0 27664041
38 Kawachi I Kennedy BP Lochner K et al Social capital, income inequality, and mortality Am J Public Health 1997 87 1491 8 10.2105/ajph.87.9.1491 9314802
39 Sundquist J Johansson S-E Yang M et al Low linking social capital as A predictor of coronary heart disease in Sweden: A cohort study of 2.8 million people Soc Sci Med 2006 62 954 63 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.049 16081195
40 Rodgers J Valuev AV Hswen Y et al Social capital and physical health: An updated review of the literature for 2007-2018 Soc Sci Med 2019 236 S0277-9536(19)30345-4 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112360
41 Hu F Hu B Chen R et al A systematic review of social capital and chronic non-communicable diseases Biosci Trends 2014 8 290 6 10.5582/bst.2014.01138 25639224
42 Hill-Briggs F Adler NE Berkowitz SA et al Social determinants of health and diabetes: A scientific review Diabetes Care 2020 44 258 79 10.2337/dci20-0053 33139407
43 Toms R Bonney A Mayne DJ et al Geographic and area-level socioeconomic variation in cardiometabolic risk factor distribution: a systematic review of the literature Int J Health Geogr 2019 18 1 1 10.1186/s12942-018-0165-5 30621786
44 Jimenez MP Wellenius GA Subramanian SV et al Longitudinal associations of neighborhood socioeconomic status with cardiovascular risk factors: A 46-year follow-up study Soc Sci Med 2019 241 112574 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112574 31593787
45 Bilal U Auchincloss AH Diez-Roux AV Neighborhood environments and diabetes risk and control Curr Diab Rep 2018 18 62 10.1007/s11892-018-1032-2 29995252
46 Pickett KE Pearl M Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review J Epidemiol Community Health 2001 55 111 22 10.1136/jech.55.2.111 11154250
47 Ludwig J Sanbonmatsu L Gennetian L et al Neighborhoods, obesity, and diabetes--A randomized social experiment N Engl J Med 2011 365 1509 19 10.1056/NEJMsa1103216 22010917
48 White JS Hamad R Li X et al Long-term effects of neighbourhood deprivation on diabetes risk: quasi-experimental evidence from a refugee dispersal policy in Sweden Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016 4 517 24 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30009-2 27131930
49 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement J Clin Epidemiol 2021 134 103 12 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 33577987
50 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
51 Abreu TC Mackenbach JD Heuvelman F et al Associations between dimensions of the social environment and cardiometabolic risk factors: Systematic review and meta-analysis SSM Popul Health 2024 25 101559 10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101559 38148999
52 Kellermeyer L Harnke B Knight S Covidence and Rayyan j m l a 2018 106 580 3 10.5195/jmla.2018.513
53 Daniels KM Schinasi LH Auchincloss AH et al The built and social neighborhood environment and child obesity: A systematic review of longitudinal studies Prev Med 2021 153 S0091-7435(21)00359-5 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106790
54 Glonti K Mackenbach JD Ng J et al Psychosocial environment: definitions, measures and associations with weight status--a systematic review Obes Rev 2016 17 81 95 10.1111/obr.12383
55 Powell K Wilcox J Clonan A et al The role of social networks in the development of overweight and obesity among adults: a scoping review BMC Public Health 2015 15 996 10.1186/s12889-015-2314-0 26423051
56 International Classification of Diseases Eleventh Revision (ICD-11). Geneva: License: CC BY-ND 3.0 IGO 2022
57 Gerdts E Regitz-Zagrosek V Sex differences in cardiometabolic disorders Nat Med 2019 25 1657 66 10.1038/s41591-019-0643-8 31700185
58 Ridgeway CL Framed before we know it how gender shapes social relations Gend Soc 2009 23 145 60 10.1177/0891243208330313
59 Wells G Shea B O’Connell D et al Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale cohort studies University of Ottawa 2014
60 Herzog R Álvarez-Pasquin MJ Díaz C et al Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review BMC Public Health 2013 13 154 10.1186/1471-2458-13-154 23421987
61 Sterne JA Hernán MA Reeves BC et al ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ 2016 355 i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 27733354
62 Sterne JAC Savović J Page MJ et al RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019 366 doi l4898 10.1136/bmj.l4898 31462531
63 Cumpston M Li T Page MJ et al Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019 10 ED000142 10.1002/14651858.ED000142 31643080
64 World Bank World Bank country and lending groups 2022 Available https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
65 R Foundation for Statistical Computing R: A language and environment for statistical computing [program]. 4.2.1 version Vienna, Austria 2022
66 Viechtbauer W Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package J Stat Softw 2010 36 1 48 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
67 McHugh ML Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic Biochem Med 2012 22 276 82 10.11613/BM.2012.031
68 Page MJ Higgins JPT Sterne JAC Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis 2019 349 74 10.1002/9781119536604
69 Potter EL Hopper I Sen J et al Impact of socioeconomic status on incident heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction: systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2019 5 169 79 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcy047 30295783
70 Valtorta NK Kanaan M Gilbody S et al Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies Heart 2016 102 1009 16 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790 27091846
71 Freak‐Poli R Phyo AZZ Hu J et al Are social isolation, lack of social support or loneliness risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia and New Zealand? A systematic review and meta‐analysis Health Prom J of Aust 2022 33 278 315 10.1002/hpja.592
72 Umberson D Montez JK Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy J Health Soc Behav 2010 51 Suppl S54 66 10.1177/0022146510383501 20943583
73 Thompson A Smith MA McNeill A et al Friendships, loneliness and psychological wellbeing in older adults: a limit to the benefit of the number of friends Ageing Soc 2024 44 1090 115 10.1017/S0144686X22000666
74 Chin B Cohen S Review of the association between number of social roles and cardiovascular disease: Graded or threshold effect? Psychosom Med 2020 82 471 86 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000809 32515924
75 Ben-Shlomo Y Kuh D A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology: conceptual models, empirical challenges and interdisciplinary perspectives Int J Epidemiol 2002 31 285 93 10.1093/ije/31.2.285 11980781
76 Beulens JWJ Pinho MGM Abreu TC et al Environmental risk factors of type 2 diabetes-an exposome approach Diabetologia 2022 65 263 74 10.1007/s00125-021-05618-w 34792619
77 Duppen D Van der Elst MCJ Dury S et al The social environment’s relationship with frailty: Evidence from existing studies J Appl Gerontol 2019 38 3 26 10.1177/0733464816688310 28380715
78 Ehsan A Klaas HS Bastianen A et al Social capital and health: A systematic review of systematic reviews SSM Popul Health 2019 8 100425 10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100425 31431915
79 Pérez E Braën C Boyer G et al Neighbourhood community life and health: A systematic review of reviews Health & Place 2020 61 102238 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102238 31735517
80 Iroz-Elardo N Adkins A Ingram M Measuring perceptions of social environments for walking: A scoping review of walkability surveys Health & Place 2021 67 102468 10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102468 33285411
81 Oberndorfer M Dorner TE Leyland AH et al The challenges of measuring social cohesion in public health research: A systematic review and ecometric meta-analysis SSM Popul Health 2022 17 101028 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101028 35111897
82 Johnston R Poulsen M Forrest J The geography of ethnic residential segregation: a comparative study of five countries Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2007 97 713 38 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00579.x
83 Yao J Wong DWS Bailey N et al Spatial segregation measures: A methodological review Tijd voor Econ & Soc Geog 2019 110 235 50 10.1111/tesg.12305
84 Lo CKL Mertz D Loeb M Newcastle-Ottawa scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 14 45 10.1186/1471-2288-14-45 24690082
85 Pink B Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Canberra Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011
86 Berkman LF Syme SL Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of alameda county residents Am J Epidemiol 1979 109 186 204 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112674 425958
87 Sampson RJ Raudenbush SW Seeing disorder: neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “Broken Windows” Soc Psychol Q 2004 67 319 42 10.1177/019027250406700401
88 Brooks R Christidis R Carah N et al Turning users into “unofficial brand ambassadors”: marketing of unhealthy food and non-alcoholic beverages on TikTok BMJ Glob Health 2022 7 e009112 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009112
89 Luo T Chen W Liao YH Social media use in China before and during COVID-19: Preliminary results from an online retrospective survey J Psychiatr Res 2021 140 35 8 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.05.057 34090101
90 Dozier M Bernard K Intervening early: Socioemotional interventions targeting the parent–infant relationship Annu Rev Dev Psychol 2023 5 115 35 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120621-043254
91 Shadish WR Baldwin SA Effects of behavioral marital therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Consult Clin Psychol 2005 73 6 14 10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.6 15709827
92 Figueroa JF Frakt AB Jha AK Addressing social determinants of health time for a polysocial risk score JAMA J Am Med Assoc 2020 323 1553 4 10.1001/jama.2020.2436
93 Campagna D Grp DW Facilitating positive health behaviors and well-being to improve health outcomes Diabetes Care 2023 46 e212 3 10.2337/dc23-1262 37890106
94 Holt-Lunstad J Robles TF Sbarra DA Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States Am Psychol 2017 72 517 30 10.1037/amp0000103 28880099
