Carla Shoff1, Tse-Chuan Yang. 1. Social Science Research Institute and The Population Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 601 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA 16802, USA, Tel: +1-814-659-0990.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available about teenage pregnancy and childbearing in rural areas, even though approximately 20 percent of the nation's youth live in rural areas. Identifying whether there are differences in the teenage birth rate (TBR) across metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important, because these differences may reflect modifiable ecological-level influences such as education, employment, laws, healthcare infrastructure, and policies that could potentially reduce the TBR. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study are to investigate whether there are spatially varying relationships between the TBR and the independent variables, and if so, whether these associations differ between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties. METHODS: We explore the heterogeneity within metropolitan/nonmetropolitan county groups separately using geographically weighted regression (GWR), and investigate the difference between metropolitan/nonmetropolitan counties using spatial regime models with spatial errors. These analyses were applied to county-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau. RESULTS: GWR results suggested that non-stationarity exists in the associations between TBR and determinants within metropolitan/nonmetropolitan groups. The spatial regime analysis indicated that the effect of socioeconomic disadvantage on TBR significantly varied by the metropolitan status of counties. CONCLUSIONS: While the spatially varying relationships between the TBR and independent variables were found within each metropolitan status of counties, only the magnitude of the impact of the socioeconomic disadvantage index is significantly stronger among metropolitan counties than nonmetropolitan counties. Our findings suggested that place-specific policies for the disadvantaged groups in a county could be implemented to reduce TBR in the US.
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available about teenage pregnancy and childbearing in rural areas, even though approximately 20 percent of the nation's youth live in rural areas. Identifying whether there are differences in the teenage birth rate (TBR) across metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important, because these differences may reflect modifiable ecological-level influences such as education, employment, laws, healthcare infrastructure, and policies that could potentially reduce the TBR. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study are to investigate whether there are spatially varying relationships between the TBR and the independent variables, and if so, whether these associations differ between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties. METHODS: We explore the heterogeneity within metropolitan/nonmetropolitan county groups separately using geographically weighted regression (GWR), and investigate the difference between metropolitan/nonmetropolitan counties using spatial regime models with spatial errors. These analyses were applied to county-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau. RESULTS: GWR results suggested that non-stationarity exists in the associations between TBR and determinants within metropolitan/nonmetropolitan groups. The spatial regime analysis indicated that the effect of socioeconomic disadvantage on TBR significantly varied by the metropolitan status of counties. CONCLUSIONS: While the spatially varying relationships between the TBR and independent variables were found within each metropolitan status of counties, only the magnitude of the impact of the socioeconomic disadvantage index is significantly stronger among metropolitan counties than nonmetropolitan counties. Our findings suggested that place-specific policies for the disadvantaged groups in a county could be implemented to reduce TBR in the US.
Authors: John S Santelli; Laura Duberstein Lindberg; Lawrence B Finer; Susheela Singh Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-11-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ann W Garwick; Kristine L Rhodes; Melanie Peterson-Hickey; Wendy L Hellerstedt Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2007-11-28 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Candice A Myers; Tim Slack; Stephanie T Broyles; Steven B Heymsfield; Timothy S Church; Corby K Martin Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Diba Khan; Lauren M Rossen; Brady Hamilton; Erin Dienes; Yulei He; Rong Wei Journal: J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Boris Kauhl; Jeanne Heil; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jürgen Schweikart; Thomas Krafft; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Candice A Myers; Tim Slack; Corby K Martin; Stephanie T Broyles; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Boris Kauhl; Jeanne Heil; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jürgen Schweikart; Thomas Krafft; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.240