| Literature DB >> 23061540 |
Jennifer Weisent1, Barton Rohrbach, John R Dunn, Agricola Odoi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic factors play a complex role in determining the risk of campylobacteriosis. Understanding the spatial interplay between these factors and disease risk can guide disease control programs. Historically, Poisson and negative binomial models have been used to investigate determinants of geographic disparities in risk. Spatial regression models, which allow modeling of spatial effects, have been used to improve these modeling efforts. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) takes this a step further by estimating local regression coefficients, thereby allowing estimations of associations that vary in space. These recent approaches increase our understanding of how geography influences the associations between determinants and disease. Therefore the objectives of this study were to: (i) identify socioeconomic determinants of the geographic disparities of campylobacteriosis risk (ii) investigate if regression coefficients for the associations between socioeconomic factors and campylobacteriosis risk demonstrate spatial variability and (iii) compare the performance of four modeling approaches: negative binomial, spatial lag, global and local Poisson GWR.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23061540 PMCID: PMC3528622 DOI: 10.1186/1476-072X-11-45
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Cases deleted from initial dataset and reasons for deletion.
| 130 | 2.75 | Infection acquired outside study area (travel-related) |
| 40 | 0.85 | No address provided |
| 24 | 0.51 | Duplicate data/data entry error |
| 4 | 0.05 | Missing sex |
| 135 | 2.80 | Missing age |
| 520 | 11.00 | Missing street or address information |
| 244 | 5.20 | Incorrect address or typographical error |
Note: One hundred twenty nine cases contained more than one of the above reasons for removal. (Total number of cases described above=1096, Total number eliminated=967).
Figure 1Age & sex standardized spatial empirical Bayes smoothed risk of campylobacteriosis in Tennessee at the census tract level. Figure adopted from Geospatial Health;6(1):65–76.
Summary statistics of the socioeconomic factors investigated for potential associations with campylobacteriosis risk
| Race & Nationality | Black or African American | 19.2 | 28.4 | 5.6 | 0 | 99.7 |
| | White | 77.2 | 29.0 | 91.1 | 0 | 100.0 |
| | American Indian or Alaskan household | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0 | 11.1 |
| | Asian | 1.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0 | 25.6 |
| | Hispanic/Latino | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0 | 34.2 |
| | Native American/Alaskan | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0 | 1.1 |
| Employment | Unemployed | 3.8 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 0 | 36.3 |
| | Service occupation | 14.9 | 6.7 | 13.6 | 0 | 82.6 |
| | Agriculture: forestry, fish/hunt/mine | 1.6 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0 | 20.4 |
| | Farming Industry | 0.6 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0 | 14.5 |
| | Disability (age 21–64) | 23.1 | 8.6 | 22.9 | 0 | 60.4 |
| | Armed forces | 0.3 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0 | 70.1 |
| Education | No high school diploma | 15.7 | 7.7 | 15.8 | 0 | 50.2 |
| | Bachelor degree | 11.9 | 9.3 | 8.7 | 0 | 52.1 |
| | Graduate or Professional Degree | 6.4 | 6.2 | 4.3 | 0 | 39.6 |
| Marital status | Never married | 24.4 | 11.1 | 19.9 | 0 | 88.9 |
| | Separated | 2.3 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 0 | 21.7 |
| | Divorced | 11.6 | 3.9 | 11.3 | 0 | 51.1 |
| | Widow | 7.4 | 3.3 | 7.0 | 0 | 28.5 |
| Poverty, Public assistance & Urbanicity | Poverty level | 12.5 | 11.3 | 9.7 | 0 | 100.0 |
| | Receive public assistance | 4.0 | 4.4 | 2.8 | 0 | 57.1 |
| | Urban | 62.7 | 42.8 | 89.1 | 0 | 100.0 |
| Rural | 37.1 | 42.7 | 10.0 | 0 | 100.0 |
Data source: U.S. Census 2000.
Figure 2Geographic distribution of selected socioeconomic variables investigated for potential association with campylobacteriosis risk in Tennessee.
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients of variables investigated for potential association with campylobacteriosis in Tennessee
| Black | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| White | −0.97 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | (<.001) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Unemployed | 0.37 | −0.35 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Service Industry | 0.40(<.001) | −0.39(<.001) | 0.57(<.001) | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Ag Employ2 | −0.49 | 0.52 | −0.07 | −0.17 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Disability | 0.15 | −0.11 | 0.51 | 0.55 | 0.19 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | | | | | | | | | |
| No High School Diploma | 0.20(<.001) | −0.15(<.001) | 0.50(<.001) | 0.51(<.001) | 0.24(<.001) | 0.76(<.001) | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
| Bachelor’s Degree | 0.05(0.08) | −0.06(0.02) | −0.39(<.001) | −0.35(<.001) | −0.41(<.001) | −0.72(<.001) | −0.79(<.001) | 1 | | | | | | | | |
| Graduate Degree | −0.01(0.86) | −0.01(0.61) | −0.36(<.001) | −0.32(<.001) | −0.34(<.001) | −0.62(<.001) | −0.73(<.001) | 0.84(<.001) | 1 | | | | | | | |
| Never Married | 0.73(<.001) | −0.74(<.001) | 0.40(<.001) | 0.48(<.001) | −0.49(<.001) | 0.16(<.001) | 0.16(<.001) | 0.09(<.001) | 0.04(0.12) | 1 | | | | | | |
| Separated | 0.61 | −0.59 | 0.47 | 0.54 | −0.24 | 0.48 | 0.48 | −0.32 | −0.30 | 0.55 | 1 | | | | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | | | | |
| Divorced | 0.27 | −0.26 | 0.31 | 0.36 | −0.21 | 0.36 | 0.32 | −0.18 | −0.17 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 1 | | | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | | | |
| Poverty level | 0.29 | −0.26 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.12 | 0.75 | 0.73 | −0.61 | −0.53 | 0.37 | 0.58 | 0.36 | 1 | | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | | |
| Receives public assistance | 0.31 | −0.28 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.06 | 0.70 | 0.69 | −0.57 | −0.50 | 0.30 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.76 | 1 | | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (0.04) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | | | |
| Urban | 0.57 | −0.60 | 0.17 | 0.26 | −0.78 | −0.10 | −0.17 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.6 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 1 | |
| | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (0.24) | (0.03) | | |
| Rural | −0.56 | 0.61 | −0.16 | −0.25 | 0.78 | 0.11 | 0.18 | −0.39 | −0.33 | −0.61 | −0.35 | −0.31 | −0.02 | −0.05 | −0.99 | 1 |
| (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (<.001) | (0.40) | (0.06) | (<.001) |
1Unemployed, 2Agricultural employment, 3No high school diploma, 4Bachelor’s degree, 5Graduate degree, 6Separated, 7Receives public assistance.
Results of assessment of univariate (simple) associations between campylobacteriosis risk and selected socioeconomic factors
| Race & Nationality | Black or African American | −0.0133 (−0.0158,-0.0108) | 0.0013 | 0.0001 | 5972 |
| | White | 0.0127 (0.0103, 0.0152) | 0.0012 | 0.0001 | 5977 |
| | Asian | 0.0265 (−0.0143, 0.0672) | 0.0204 | 0.2037 | 6072 |
| | Hispanic/Latino | −0.0065 (−0.0278, 0.0148) | 0.0109 | 0.5499 | 6074 |
| | American Indian/Alaskan | 0.3575 (−0.0490, 0.7641) | 0.2074 | 0.0843 | 6071 |
| Employment | Unemployed | −0.0902 (−0.1170,-0.0634) | 0.0137 | 0.0001 | 6030 |
| | Service occupation | −0.0291 (−0.0403,-0.0178) | 0.0058 | 0.0001 | 6049 |
| | Agriculture: forestry, fishing, hunting & mining | 0.0585 (0.0317, 0.0854) | 0.0137 | 0.0001 | 6055 |
| | Farming Industry | 0.0278 (0.0367,-0.0442) | 0.0999 | 0.4485 | 6074 |
| | Disability (age 21–64) | −0.0169 (−0.0253,-0.0086) | 0.0043 | 0.0001 | 6058 |
| | Armed forces | −0.0462 (−0.0779,-0.0144) | 0.0162 | 0.0043 | 6065 |
| Education | No High school diploma | −0.0097 (−0.0188,-0.0006) | 0.0046 | 0.0373 | 6070 |
| | Bachelor degree | 0.0122 (0.0049, 0.0195) | 0.0037 | 0.0011 | 6069 |
| | Graduate/Professional Degree | 0.0159 (0.0054, 0.0265) | 0.0054 | 0.0031 | 6070 |
| Marital status | Never married | −0.0134 (−0.0193, -0.007) | 0.0030 | 0.0001 | 6055 |
| | Separated | −0.1560 (−0.1909, -0.1211) | 0.0178 | 0.0001 | 6000 |
| | Divorced | −0.0390 (−0.0570, -0.020) | 0.0092 | 0.0001 | 6056 |
| | Widow | −0.0559 (−0.0776, -0.0342) | 0.0111 | 0.0001 | 6049 |
| Poverty, Public Assistance & Urbanicity | Below poverty level | −0.0198 (−0.0264,-0.0132) | 0.0034 | 0.0001 | 6041 |
| | Receives public assistance | −0.0458 (−0.0627,-0.0289) | 0.0086 | 0.0001 | 6047 |
| | Urban | −0.2573 (−0.4133,-0.1013) | 0.0796 | 0.0012 | 6064 |
| Rural | 0.2573 (0.1013, 0.4134) | 0.0796 | 0.0012 | 6064 |
1 Standard Error.
2Akaike’s Information Criterion.
Figure 3McHenry’s All Possible variable selection procedure scree plot demonstrating root mean square error improvement in the top model combinations. Improvement is optimized with four variables (dashed red line).
Comparison of negative binomial, spatial lag, global and local geographically weighted Poisson models
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |||
| Intercept | −7.164 (0.0001) | 1.716 (0.000) | - 7.155 (0.000) | −8.187 | -6.247 |
| Black Race | −0.015 (0.0001) | −0.169 (0.001) | −0.014 (0.001) | −0.0487 | 0.0218 |
| No diploma | 0.021 (0.0004) | −0.012 (0.112) | 0.003 (0.003) | −0.0553 | 0.0533 |
| Unemployed | −0.041 (0.0141) | −0.030 (0.112) | −0.014 (0.009) | −0.1866 | 0.0851 |
| Urban | 0.235 (0.0154) | 0.357 (0.014) | 0.186 (0.055) | −0.4526 | 0.9321 |
| | | | | | |
| Intercept | - 6.73 (0.0001) | 1.80 (0.000) | - 6.85 (0.000) | −7.71 | -4.905 |
| Black Race | −0.0129 (0.0001) | −0.093 (0.000) | −0.012 (0.001) | −0.0161 | 0.0311 |
| No diploma | 0.0175 (0.0009) | −0.018 (0.011) | 0.000 (0.003) | −0.0650 | 0.0882 |
| Unemployed | −0.0330 (0.0433) | −0.026 (0.179) | −0.010 (0.008) | −0.1847 | 0.0752 |
| Divorced | −0.0260 (0.006) | −0.004 (0.733) | −0.016 (0.005) | −0.2485 | 0.0382 |
1 Geographically Weighted Regression.
Assessment of the stationarity of the local Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) Model coefficients
| Black Race | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.015 | Yes |
| No diploma | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.028 | Yes |
| Unemployed | 0.009 | 0.018 | 0.068 | Yes |
| Urban | 0.046 | 0.092 | 0.469 | Yes |
| | | | | |
| Black Race | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.016 | Yes |
| No diploma | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.015 | Yes |
| Unemployed | 0.009 | 0.018 | 0.067 | Yes |
| Divorced | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.033 | Yes |
1 Geographically Weighted Regression.
2 Standard error of the global GWR model.
3 Interquartile local coefficient estimate range.
Figure 4Model 1 geographically weighted parameter estimates of the significant socioeconomic determinants of campylobacteriosis risk in Tennessee.
Figure 5Model 2 geographically weighted parameter estimates of the significant socioeconomic determinants of campylobacteriosis risk in Tennessee.