| Literature DB >> 20838482 |
Benn Sartorius1, Kathleen Kahn, Penelope Vounatsou, Mark A Collinson, Stephen M Tollman.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detailed information regarding the spatial and/or spatial-temporal distribution of mortality is required for the efficient implementation and targeting of public health interventions.Entities:
Keywords: all-cause mortality; clustering; demographic surveillance; spatial–temporal
Year: 2010 PMID: 20838482 PMCID: PMC2938122 DOI: 10.3402/gha.v3i0.5225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Fig. 1Maps showing the regional location of the Agincourt health and socio-demographic surveillance site (Source: Kahn K et al. Research into health, population and social transitions in rural South Africa: data and methods of the Agincourt health and socio-demographic surveillance system. Scand J Public Health 2007; 35: 8–20).
Crude mortality rates (per 1,000 person-years) by age group and gender, Agincourt sub-district, 1992–2007
| Females | Males | Overall | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age group | Deaths | Person years | Death rate | 95% CI for death rate | Deaths | Person years | Death rate | 95% CI for death rate | Deaths | Person years | Death rate | 95% CI for death rate |
| <5 | 654 | 71,435.9 | 9.2 | 8.47–9.88 | 686 | 71,132.48 | 9.6 | 8.94–10.39 | 1,343 | 142,602.3 | 9.4 | 8.92–9.94 |
| 5–14 | 119 | 140,287.9 | 0.8 | 0.7–1.02 | 131 | 140,139.7 | 0.9 | 0.78–1.11 | 250 | 280,438.6 | 0.9 | 0.78–1.01 |
| 15–49 | 1,663 | 261,594.7 | 6.4 | 6.06–6.67 | 1,883 | 242,948.5 | 7.8 | 7.4–8.11 | 3,546 | 504,543.9 | 7.0 | 6.8–7.26 |
| 50–64 | 511 | 36,928.2 | 13.8 | 12.66–15.09 | 742 | 28,445.64 | 26.1 | 24.24–28.03 | 1,253 | 65,373.88 | 19.2 | 18.12–20.26 |
| 65+ | 1,057 | 28,272.9 | 37.4 | 35.17–39.71 | 967 | 15,954.2 | 60.6 | 56.85–64.55 | 2,024 | 44,228.54 | 45.8 | 43.79–47.8 |
| Total | 4,004 | 538,519.6 | 7.4 | 7.21–7.67 | 4,409 | 498,620.5 | 8.8 | 8.59–9.11 | 8,416 | 1,037,187.2 | 8.1 | 7.94–8.29 |
Crude mortality rates overall and by village in the Agincourt sub-district, 1992–2007
| Death rate per 1,000 person years | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village | Total deaths | Person years | Overall (95% CI) | 1992–1995 | 1996–1999 | 2000–2003 | 2004–2007 | Rate change (95%CI) α |
| 1 | 828 | 106,445 | 7.8 (7.3–8.3) | 5.4 | 4.9 | 9.4 | 11.7 | 6.4 (5.9, 6.8) |
| 2 | 344 | 47,642 | 7.2 (6.5–8.0) | 4.5 | 5.6 | 8.8 | 10.0 | 5.5 (4.9, 6.2) |
| 3 | 640 | 82,066 | 7.8 (7.2–8.4) | 4.8 | 6.9 | 8.4 | 11.1 | 6.3 (5.8, 6.8) |
| 4 | 421 | 50,498 | 8.3 (7.6–9.2) | 5.8 | 5.8 | 10 | 11.5 | 5.7 (5.1, 6.2) |
| 5 | 315 | 40,215 | 7.8 (7.0–8.8) | 4.7 | 6.9 | 9.1 | 10.5 | 5.8 (5.1, 6.5) |
| 6 | 456 | 55,304 | 8.3 (7.5–9.0) | 4.1 | 6.2 | 9.8 | 13.0 | |
| 7 | 282 | 35,393 | 8.0 (7.1–9.0) | 3.8 | 5.6 | 9.6 | 12.9 | |
| 8 | 675 | 74,735 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 10.1 | |||
| 9 | 550 | 69,795 | 7.9 (7.2–8.6) | 5.0 | 5.6 | 8.5 | 12.5 | |
| 10 | 519 | 66,170 | 7.8 (7.2–8.6) | 5.6 | 5.9 | 8.4 | 11.1 | 5.5 (5.1, 5.8) |
| 11 | 738 | 94,577 | 7.8 (7.3–8.4) | 5.3 | 5.6 | 8.3 | 11.6 | 6.3 (5.9, 6.6) |
| 12 | 253 | 29,467 | 8.6 (7.6–9.7) | 5.5 | 5.8 | 10 | 12.4 | 6.9 (6.2, 7.5) |
| 13 | 409 | 50,503 | 8.1 (7.3–8.9) | 5.1 | 6.3 | 10.8 | 10.2 | 5.2 (4.6, 5.7) |
| 14 | 242 | 27,863 | 8.7 (7.6–9.9) | 4.3 | 5.9 | 10.1 | 14.6 | |
| 15 | 432 | 46,907 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 10.5 | 12.9 | 6.8 (6.2, 7.4) | |
| 16 | 527 | 61,783 | 8.5 (7.8–9.3) | 5.4 | 6.1 | 10.1 | 13.0 | |
| 17 | 263 | 34,933 | 7.5 (6.7–8.5) | 5.4 | 4.5 | 9.5 | 12.4 | 7.0 (5.8, 8.3) |
| 18 | 115 | 15,765 | 7.3 (6.0–8.8) | 4.7 | 6.2 | 7.6 | 11.4 | 6.7 (5.3, 8.3) |
| 19 | 156 | 19,049 | 8.2 (7.0–9.6) | 6.3 | 6.1 | 8.6 | 13.8 | 7.4 (5.7, 9.6) |
| 20 | 132 | 16,136 | 8.2 (6.8–9.7) | 5.9 | 6.1 | 8.5 | 2.6 (1.8, 3.6) | |
| 21 | 122 | 11,990 | – | 2.7 | 8.9 | 12.5 | ||
| Overall | 8,419 | 1,037,238 | 8.12 (7.9–8.3) | 5.2 (4.9, 5.5) | 5.9 (5.6,6.2) | 9.4 (9.0,9.7) | 12.0 (11.5,12.4) | 6.8 (6.6, 6.9) |
Note: Bold numbers indicate mortality rates significantly above the average for a given period (p < 0.05). α: Rate difference first period (1992–1995) versus last period (2004–2007) except for village 21, which compares first available period (1996–1999) to last period.
Fig. 2Crude mortality rates (per 1,000 person years) by gender (female = black, male = light gray), age group and year, Agincourt sub-district, 1992–2007.
Clusters of all-cause mortality by age group, using the purely spatial analysis scanning for high mortality rates, Agincourt sub-district, 1992–2007
| Age group | Type | Number of villages | Location within site | Observed cases | Expected cases | Relative risk (RR) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <5 | Most likely | 7 | South east corner | 526 | 439 | 1.32 | <0.001 |
| <5 | Secondary | 6 | Upper central | 35 | 18 | 2.02 | 0.011 |
| 15–49 | Most likely | 5 | South east corner | 790 | 703 | 1.16 | 0.013 |
| 15–49 | Secondary | 1 | Upper central | 73 | 48 | 1.55 | 0.025 |
| 65+ | Most likely | 9 | Central/West | 1,039 | 961 | 1.17 | 0.024 |
Clusters of all-cause mortality by age group using space–time scan analysis scanning for high mortality rates, Agincourt sub-district, 1992–2007
| Age group | Type | Years | Number of villages | Location within site | Observed cases | Expected cases | Relative risk (RR) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <5 | Most likely | 1999–2006 | 6 | Upper central/east | 233 | 148 | 1.70 | <0.001 |
| <5 | Secondary | 1999–2006 | 5 | South east | 227 | 150 | 1.62 | <0.001 |
| 15–49 | Most likely | 2001–2007 | 7 | South east corner | 638 | 385 | 1.80 | <0.001 |
| 15–49 | Secondary | 2001–2007 | 7 | Upper central/east | 602 | 402 | 1.60 | <0.001 |
| 15–49 | Tertiary | 2003–2007 | 3 | West/central | 426 | 278 | 1.60 | <0.001 |
| 50–64 | Most likely | 2002–2007 | 4 | Upper east | 151 | 94 | 1.69 | <0.001 |
| 50–64 | Secondary | 2003–2006 | 1 | South east | 54 | 25 | 2.22 | <0.001 |
| 50–64 | Tertiary | 2002–2006 | 3 | Central/West | 154 | 109 | 1.47 | 0.026 |
Fig. 3Significant clusters of all-cause mortality by age group in Agincourt sub-district using space–time analysis (Note: Figure shows administrative boundary of lower Bushbuckridge municipality; 1 = most likely cluster, 2 = secondary cluster, 3 = tertiary cluster).