Cited by 176Health disparities and outcomesCrime Patterns and InterventionsUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies

Broken (windows) theory: A meta-analysis of the evidence for the pathways from neighborhood disorder to resident health outcomes and behaviors

O'Brien, Daniel T., Farrell, Chelsea, Welsh, Brandon C.·2019·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

The criminological "broken windows" theory (BWT) has inspired public health researchers to test the impact of neighborhood disorder on an array of resident health behaviors and outcomes. This paper identifies and meta-analyzes the evidence for three mechanisms (pathways) by which neighborhood disorder is argued to impact health, accounting for methodological inconsistencies across studies. A search identified 198 studies (152 with sufficient data for meta-analysis) testing any of the three pathways or downstream, general health outcomes. The meta-analysis found that perceived disorder was consistently associated with mental health outcomes, as well as substance abuse, and measures of overall health. This supported the psychosocial model of disadvantage, in which stressful contexts impact mental health and related sequelae. There was no consistent evidence for disorder's impact on physical health or risky behavior. Further examination revealed that support for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated owing to data censoring and the failure to consistently include critical covariates, like socioeconomic status and collective efficacy. Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 239 · Cited by 176

Authors
O'Brien, D. T., Farrell, C., & Welsh, B. C.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
O'Brien, Daniel T.
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
228
Pages
272-292
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900806259
Cited by
176
References
239
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Keywords
broken windows theory, neighborhood disorder, perceived disorder, mental health, substance abuse, physical health, risk-taking, collective efficacy, socioeconomic status, data censoring
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Crime, Humans, Residence Characteristics, Socioeconomic Factors, Health Behavior, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Substance-Related Disorders, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review