| Literature DB >> 24394218 |
Zhensheng Wang1, Qingyun Du2, Shi Liang3, Ke Nie4, De-nan Lin5, Yan Chen6, Jia-jia Li7.
Abstract
In China, awareness about hypertension, the treatment rate and the control rate are low compared to developed countries, even though China's aging population has grown, especially in those areas with a high degree of urbanization. However, limited epidemiological studies have attempted to describe the spatial variation of the geo-referenced data on hypertension disease over an urban area of China. In this study, we applied hierarchical Bayesian models to explore the spatial heterogeneity of the relative risk for hypertension admissions throughout Shenzhen in 2011. The final model specification includes an intercept and spatial components (structured and unstructured). Although the road density could be used as a covariate in modeling, it is an indirect factor on the relative risk. In addition, spatial scan statistics and spatial analysis were utilized to identify the spatial pattern and to map the clusters. The results showed that the relative risk for hospital admission for hypertension has high-value clusters in the south and southeastern Shenzhen. This study aimed to identify some specific regions with high relative risk, and this information is useful for the health administrators. Further research should address more-detailed data collection and an explanation of the spatial patterns.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24394218 PMCID: PMC3924470 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110100713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1A map of China showing the location of Shenzhen.
Figure 2A map of Shenzhen.
Figure 3The map illustrates the spatial variation of hypertension admission rate at sub-district level.
Figure 4These maps illustrate the spatial variations of the observed hypertension admission cases at multiple levels: (1) the district level; (2) the sub-district level, and (3) the community level.
Figure 5These maps illustrate the spatial variation of relative risk: (1) a map of the SR; (2) a map of the smoothing SR.
The results of hot spot analysis based on the Gi*.
| Cluster Type | Sub-district | Observed Cases | Expected Cases | SR | GiPValue | GiZscore |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 107 | 107.21 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 2.55 |
|
| 248 | 247.83 | 1.00 | 0.08 | 1.74 | |
|
| 109 | 113.97 | 0.96 | 0.08 | 1.77 | |
|
| 134 | 226.66 | 0.59 | 0.06 | 1.90 | |
|
| 152 | 82.59 | 1.84 | 0.07 | 1.82 | |
|
| 176 | 61.34 | 2.87 | 0.02 | 2.34 | |
|
| 51 | 19.05 | 2.68 | 0.03 | 2.14 | |
|
| 87 | 46.44 | 1.87 | <0.01 | 3.15 | |
|
|
| 370 | 453.96 | 0.82 | 0.08 | −1.77 |
|
| 287 | 531.41 | 0.54 | 0.09 | −1.72 | |
|
| 147 | 279.45 | 0.53 | 0.05 | −1.94 | |
|
| 148 | 366.27 | 0.40 | 0.02 | −2.39 | |
|
| 219 | 229.34 | 0.95 | 0.06 | −1.91 |
Figure 6These maps illustrate the cluster of relative risk as estimated by SatScan (1) and as estimated by the hot spot analysis of ArcGIS (2).
The clusters of the relative risk in Shenzhen, 2011 from SaTScan using a purely spatial analysis.
| Cluster Type | Sub-district | Observed Cases | Expected Cases | Relative Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 212 | 152.13 | 2.69 | <0.0001 |
|
| 576 | 163.28 | 2.69 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 216 | 82.43 | 2.69 | <0.0001 | |
|
|
| 87 | 46.44 | 2.52 | <0.0001 |
|
| 176 | 61.34 | 2.52 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 51 | 19.05 | 2.52 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 224 | 80.12 | 2.84 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 82 | 84.40 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 166 | 83.55 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 170 | 112.03 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 160 | 115.91 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 46 | 103.72 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 153 | 91.46 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 94 | 63.47 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 157 | 90.83 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 152 | 82.59 | 1.44 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 444 | 248.76 | 1.82 | <0.0001 | |
|
| 142 | 95.70 | 1.49 | 0.0014 | |
|
| 400 | 320.10 | 1.26 | 0.0018 |
The results of hierarchical Bayesian models from WinBUGS with different complexities.
| # of Model | Description |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 3,015.580 | 3,013.600 | 1.985 | 3,017.570 |
|
|
| 3,283.520 | 3,282.530 | 0.995 | 3,284.520 |
|
|
| 328.936 | 283.227 | 45.709 | 374.646 |
|
|
| 334.725 | 291.671 | 43.054 | 377.779 |
|
|
| 316.465 | 273.777 | 42.688 | 359.153 |
|
|
| 356.994 | 306.799 | 50.195 | 407.189 |
A posterior summary of the results of hierarchical Bayesian models from WinBUGS.
| # of Model | Explanation Variables | Mean | SD | MC Error | Credible Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5% | 97.5% | |||||
|
|
| −0.2729 | 0.02323 | 2.873E-4 | −0.3187 | −0.228 |
|
| 0.4525 | 0.03394 | 4.168E-4 | 0.3862 | 0.519 | |
|
|
| −0.6257 | 0.009773 | 3.893E-5 | −0.6449 | −0.6066 |
|
|
| 0.05549 | 0.07219 | 0.001014 | −0.08567 | 0.197 |
|
| 4.373 | 1.032 | 0.006073 | 2.633 | 6.666 | |
|
|
| 0.06246 | 0.03228 | 1.39E-4 | −0.001213 | 0.1252 |
|
| 1.015 | 0.1706 | 0.001032 | 0.7188 | 1.386 | |
|
|
| 0.07391 | 0.05503 | 5.591E-4 | −0.03969 | 0.1805 |
|
| 819.7 | 13,800.0 | 435.8 | 3.965 | 1,710.0 | |
|
| 2.207 | 2.364 | 0.08871 | 0.9082 | 6.592 | |
|
|
| −0.03228 | 0.2274 | 0.01064 | −0.4436 | 0.4754 |
|
| 0.1787 | 0.3556 | 0.0167 | −0.6419 | 0.8033 | |
|
| 17.75 | 203.0 | 7.739 | 0.8435 | 48.67 | |
|
| 26.78 | 188.6 | 6.437 | 3.147 | 122.8 | |
A summary of the top ten sub-districts with significant smoothing; the rank is specified from high to low.
| Sub-district | SR | Smoothing SR | Rank of Expected Cases | Rank of Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.87 | 1.36 | 53 | 5 |
|
| 2.73 | 1.78 | 51 | 54 |
|
| 2.68 | 1.82 | 56 | 2 |
|
| 3.53 | 2.75 | 25 | 43 |
|
| 1.62 | 0.94 | 30 | 34 |
|
| 1.48 | 0.91 | 39 | 16 |
|
| 1.19 | 0.69 | 47 | 18 |
|
| 1.99 | 1.51 | 44 | 25 |
|
| 1.67 | 1.20 | 40 | 57 |
|
| 1.14 | 0.71 | 54 | 45 |