estudo metacientífico

Neighborhood safety is an important social determinant of health, and its relationship with mental health has been widely investigated; however, this body of research is marked by conceptual and methodological heterogeneity that compromises the interpretation of results. In this context, the present study aimed to critically analyze scientific literature on the methods used to assess neighborhood safety in studies that examine the relationship between neighborhood safety and mental disorders through a meta-scientific documentary analysis without restrictions on time, language, or country. A total of 127 published studies were evaluated, most of which had a cross-sectional design and were predominantly conducted in the United States and other developed countries. There were a substantial methodological variability and a lack of standardization in the conceptualization and measurement of neighborhood safety constructs, even within the four predefined categories (disorder, subjective, documentary, and composite). Most studies assessed subjective perceptions of safety through self-reported interviews, whereas few relied on documentary sources or third-party assessments. Depression was the most frequently examined outcome, although it was also characterized by considerable methodological variability, with a preference for self-reported symptom scales over more robust diagnostic instruments. The results highlighted substantial methodological fragmentation, a lack of conceptual consensus and vulnerability to bias, particularly common method bias. It is concluded that the literature exhibits a state of epistemic stagnation, underscoring the need for future studies to adopt designs better suited to the research question, employ methods that enhance comparability across studies, ensure adequate control of covariates, and address potential methodological biases.