|Description of the included studies|
|Reference||Region||Population||SES||Social capital||Outcome||Mediating/pathway model||Moderating model|
|Kohen, Brooks-Gun, Leventhal, & Hertzman, 2002||Canada||Children (4–5 y)||Neighbourhood income, neighbourhood family structure, neighbourhood unemployment rate||Neighbourhood cohesion (N items = 5, IR: α=0.87)||Children’s receptive verbal ability + behaviour problems||Model tested in the study, but no significant results found||Model not tested in the study|
|Xue, Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn et al., 2005||USA, Chicago||Children (6–12 y)||Neighbourhood concentrated disadvantage, family income, maternal education and employment||Neighbourhood collective efficacy: informal social control (N items = 5, IR: not reported) + social cohesion (N items = 5, IR: not reported), neighbourhood organisational participation (N items = 7, IR: not reported)||Mental health problems (internalising problems)||Neighbourhood concentrated disadvantage → neighbourhood collective efficacy → mental health problems||Model not tested in the study|
|Caughy & O’Campo, 2006||USA, Baltimore||African American children (3 – 4.5 y)||Economic impoverishment: poverty rate, unemployment, vacant housing, single-headed families||Parental psychological sense of community (N items = 10, IR: α=0.92), parental willingness to assist children in need (N items = not reported, IR: α=0.81) and stop acts of misbehaviour (N items = not reported, IR: α=0.85)||Child cognitive competence||Model tested in the study, but no significant results found||Model not tested in the study|
|Drukker, Kaplan, Schneiders, Feron, & van Os, 2006||The Netherlands, Maastricht||Adolescents (Age M wave 1=10.2 y, wave 2 = 13.5 y)||Neighbourhood social disadvantage index (contains information on family structure, employment status, social benefits, ethnicity, voting behaviour and income).||Collective efficacy: informal social control, social cohesion and trust (N items and IR not reported)||Quality of life: self-esteem and satisfaction||Model not tested in the study||Model tested in the study, but no significant results found|
|Kohen, Leventhal, Dahinten, & McIntosh, 2008||Canada||Children (4–5 y)||Neighbourhood structural disadvantage: income, education, unemployment, family structure||Neighbourhood cohesion (N items=5, IR not reported)||Verbal ability + behaviour problems||SES -> neighbourhood cohesion -> maternal depression -> punitive parenting -> behaviour problems||Model not tested in the study|
|SES -> neighbourhood cohesion -> family functioning -> consistent parenting -> verbal ability|
|Caughy, Nettles & O'Campo, 2008||USA, Baltimore||Children 6–7 y||Neighbourhood concentrated economic disadvantage, parental educational attainment, parental employment status||Neighbourhood potential for community involvement with children (N items=not reported, IR: α=0.78 (individual level) and 0.95 (neighbourhood. level), neighbourhood negative social climate (N items=not reported, IR: α=0.76)||Child behaviour problems (internalising and externalising behaviour problems)||Model not tested in the study||Neighbourhood concentrated economic disadvantage X neighbourhood potential for community involvement with children|
|Karriker-Jaffe, Foshee, Ennett, & Suchindran, 2009||USA||Rural adolescents (11–18 y)||Neighbourhood socio-economic disadvantage score: education, employment, economic resources||Neighbourhood-level social organisation: neighbourhood social bonding (N items=4, IR: α=0.75), neighbourhood social control (N items=6, IR: α=0.91)||Aggression trajectories||Model tested in the study, but no significant results found||Model tested in the study, but no significant results found|
|Odgers et al., 2009||England & Wales||Children 5–10 y||Neighbourhood deprivation versus affluence, family socio-economic disadvantage||Neighbourhood collective efficacy (IR neighbourhood level: α=0.88): consists of informal social control (N items=5) + social cohesion (N items=5)||Children’s antisocial behaviour: aggression + delinquency||Model not tested in the study||Neighbourhood deprivation versus affluence X neighbourhood collective efficacy|
|Total number of studies||8|
y = years of age; M= Mean; IR= Internal reliability; N items = Number of items in scale.
Vyncke et al.
Vyncke et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:65 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-65