Hendrik Siebert1, Helmut Uphoff2, Henny Annette Grewe3. 1. Public Health Zentrum, Hochschule Fulda, Leipziger Straße 123, 36037, Fulda, Deutschland. hendrik.siebert@pg.hs-fulda.de. 2. Fachbereich Infektionsepidemiologie, Hessisches Landesprüfungs- und Untersuchungsamt im Gesundheitswesen, Wolframstraße 33, 35683, Dillenburg, Deutschland. 3. Public Health Zentrum, Hochschule Fulda, Leipziger Straße 123, 36037, Fulda, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring of the mortality phenomenon is given high priority in the current recommendations for the preparation of heat action plans in Germany with respect to problem detection and evaluation of interventions. International monitoring systems are heterogeneous concerning the procedures used. In Germany, such monitoring systems are rarely established. OBJECTIVES: Under what circumstances can a mortality monitoring system be operated on a regional basis using routine data? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Summer mortality data from Hesse from 2000 to 2018 and their associations with climate variables were analyzed. Different approaches regarding spatial analyses, definition of excess criteria, and adjusting procedures were explored. RESULTS: In Hesse, daily mean temperatures averaged over all operating weather stations proved appropriate as a climate parameter. The expected daily number of deaths was estimated by a moving average based on 25 daily mortality datasets from reference periods of five years adjusted for mortality peaks using data from three previous years. Mortality excess was defined as twice the value of the standard deviation of the expected values including an empirically determined temperature threshold. This threshold was derived from analyzing relative frequencies of observed excess number of deaths per 1 ℃ temperature interval. Based on this approach, 49 mortality excesses with a total of 889 excess deaths were estimated in Hesse during days with a daily mean temperature of more than 23.0 ℃ during summer from 2005 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The system described in this article turned out to be practicable for systematically monitoring mortality during summer. Timely availability of mortality and climate data is crucial.
BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring of the mortality phenomenon is given high priority in the current recommendations for the preparation of heat action plans in Germany with respect to problem detection and evaluation of interventions. International monitoring systems are heterogeneous concerning the procedures used. In Germany, such monitoring systems are rarely established. OBJECTIVES: Under what circumstances can a mortality monitoring system be operated on a regional basis using routine data? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Summer mortality data from Hesse from 2000 to 2018 and their associations with climate variables were analyzed. Different approaches regarding spatial analyses, definition of excess criteria, and adjusting procedures were explored. RESULTS: In Hesse, daily mean temperatures averaged over all operating weather stations proved appropriate as a climate parameter. The expected daily number of deaths was estimated by a moving average based on 25 daily mortality datasets from reference periods of five years adjusted for mortality peaks using data from three previous years. Mortality excess was defined as twice the value of the standard deviation of the expected values including an empirically determined temperature threshold. This threshold was derived from analyzing relative frequencies of observed excess number of deaths per 1 ℃ temperature interval. Based on this approach, 49 mortality excesses with a total of 889 excess deaths were estimated in Hesse during days with a daily mean temperature of more than 23.0 ℃ during summer from 2005 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The system described in this article turned out to be practicable for systematically monitoring mortality during summer. Timely availability of mortality and climate data is crucial.
Keywords:
Climate change; Health; Mortality excess; Routine data; Temperature
Authors: Dieter Leyk; Joachim Hoitz; Clemens Becker; Karl Jochen Glitz; Kai Nestler; Claus Piekarski Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.594