Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Are area-based initiatives able to improve area safety in deprived areas? A quasi-experimental evaluation of the Dutch District Approach

Authors: Daniëlle Kramer, Birthe Jongeneel-Grimen, Karien Stronks, Mariël Droomers, Anton E. Kunst

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Numerous area-based initiatives have been implemented in deprived areas across Western-Europe with the aim to improve the socio-economic and environmental conditions in these areas. Only few of these initiatives have been scientifically evaluated for their impact on key social determinants of health, like perceived area safety. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact of a Dutch area-based initiative called the District Approach on trends in perceived area safety and underlying problems in deprived target districts.

Methods

A quasi-experimental design was used. Repeated cross-sectional data on perceived area safety and underlying problems were obtained from the National Safety Monitor (2005–2008) and its successor the Integrated Safety Monitor (2008–2011). Study population consisted of 133,522 Dutch adults, including 3,595 adults from target districts. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to assess trends in self-reported general safety, physical order, social order, and non-victimization before and after the start of the District Approach mid-2008. Trends in target districts were compared with trends in various control groups.

Results

Residents of target districts felt less safe, perceived less physical and social order, and were victimized more often than adults elsewhere in the Netherlands. For non-victimization, target districts showed a somewhat more positive change in trend after the start of the District Approach than the rest of the Netherlands or other deprived districts. Differences were only statistically significant in women, older adults, and lower educated adults. For general safety, physical order, and social order, there were no differences in trend change between target districts and control groups.

Conclusions

Results suggest that the District Approach has been unable to improve perceptions of area safety and disorder in deprived areas, but that it did result in declining victimization rates.
Literature
1.
Atkinson R. European urban policies and the neighbourhood: an overview. Urban Des Plann. 2008;161:115–22.CrossRef
2.
Atkinson R, Thomson H, Kearns A, Petticrew M. Giving urban policy its ‘medical’: assessing the place of health in area-based regeneration. Policy Polit. 2006;34:5–26.CrossRef
3.
Thomson H, Atkinson R, Petticrew M, Kearns A. Do urban regeneration programmes improve public health and reduce health inequalities? A synthesis of the evidence from UK policy and practice (1980–2004). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:108–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Droomers M, Harting J, Jongeneel-Grimen B, Rutten L, van Kats J, Stronks K. Area-based interventions to ameliorate deprived Dutch neighborhoods in practice: Does the Dutch District Approach address the social determinants of health to such an extent that future health impacts may be expected? Prev Med. 2014;61:122–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Baum FE, Ziersch AM, Zhang G, Osborne K. Do perceived neighbourhood cohesion and safety contribute to neighbourhood differences in health? Health Place. 2009;15:925–34.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Lorenc T, Clayton S, Neary D, Whitehead M, Petticrew M, Thomson H, et al. Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: mapping review of theories and causal pathways. Health Place. 2012;18:757–65.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Neary D, Clayton S, Wright K, et al. Fear of crime and the environment: systematic review of UK qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Taylor RB, Hale M. Testing alternative models of fear of crime. J Crim Law Crim. 1986;77:151–89.CrossRef
10.
Covington J, Taylor RB. Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods: implications of between- and within-neighbourhood sources for current models. Sociol Quart. 1991;32:231–49.CrossRef
11.
Ferraro KF. Fear of crime: interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1995.
12.
Taylor RB. The incivilities thesis: theory, measurement, and policy. In: Reno J, Fisher RC, Robinson L, Brennan N, Travis J, Brann JE, editors. Measuring what matters. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice; 1999. p. 65–88.
13.
Foster S, Giles-Corti B. The built environment, neighbourhood crime and constrained physical activity: an exploration of inconsistent findings. Prev Med. 2008;47:241–51.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cozens PM, Saville G, Hillier DL. Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Prop Manag. 2005;23:328–56.
15.
Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997;277:918–24.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Neary D, Clayton S, Wright K, et al. Environmental interventions to reduce fear of crime: systematic review of effectiveness. Syst Rev. 2013;2:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Rhodes J, Tyler P, Brennan A. New developments in area-based initiatives in England: the experience of the Single Regeneration Budget. Urban Stud. 2003;40:1399–426.CrossRef
18.
Rhodes J, Tyler P, Brennan A. Assessing the effect of area based initiatives on local area outcomes: some thoughts based on the national evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget in England. Urban Stud. 2005;42:1919–46.CrossRef
19.
Lawless P. Understanding the scale and nature of outcome change in area-regeneration programmes: evidence from the New Deal for Communities programme in England. Environ Plann C. 2011;29:520–32.CrossRef
20.
Foden M, Grimsley M, Lawless P, Wilson I. Linking interventions to outcomes in area regeneration. TPR. 2010;81:151–72.
21.
Skogan WG, Maxfield MG. Coping with crime. Individual and neighbourhood reactions. London: Sage Publications; 1981.
22.
Stafford M, Nazroo J, Popay JM, Whitehead M. Tackling inequalities in health: evaluating the New Deal for Communities initiative. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:298–304.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:1182–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Permentier M, Kullberg J, van Noije L. Werk aan de wijk. Een quasi-experimentele evaluatie van het krachtwijkenbeleid. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau: Den Haag; 2013.
25.
Pearson S, Lawless P. Population mobility in regeneration areas: trends, drivers, and implications; evidence from England’s New Deal for Communities Programme. Environ Plann A. 2012;44:2023–39.CrossRef
26.
Wilson I. Outcomes for ‘stayers’ in urban regeneration areas: the New Deal for Communities Programme in England. Urban Res Pract. 2013;6:174–93.CrossRef
27.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Integrale Veiligheidsmonitor 2009: proces- en onderzoeksdocumentatie. Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek; 2010.
28.
29.
Batty E, Beatty C, Foden M, Lawless P, Pearson S, Wilson I. Making deprived areas better places to live: evidence from the New Deal for Communities Programme. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2010.
30.
Lawless P, Beatty C. Exploring change in local regeneration areas: evidence from the New Deal for Communities programme in England. Urban Stud. 2013;50:942–58.
31.
Cloïn M, van den Broek A, van den Dool R, de Haan J, de Hart J, van Houwelingen P, et al. Met het oog op de tijd. Een blik op de tijdsbesteding van Nederlanders. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau: Den Haag; 2013.
Metadata
Title
Are area-based initiatives able to improve area safety in deprived areas? A quasi-experimental evaluation of the Dutch District Approach
Authors
Daniëlle Kramer
Birthe Jongeneel-Grimen
Karien Stronks
Mariël Droomers
Anton E. Kunst
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2027-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Assessing community readiness online: a concurrent validation study

Research article

The burden of hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa: a four-country cross sectional study

Research article

The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence on mental health outcomes among abused Chinese women: a mixed-method study

Research article

Parents' perception of stroller use in young children: a qualitative study

Research article

Visual impairment, coping strategies and impact on daily life: a qualitative study among working-age UK ex-service personnel

Research article

The effect of mother’s educational status on early initiation of breastfeeding: further analysis of three consecutive Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys