| Literature DB >> 31035715 |
Kyung-Duk Min1, Ju-Yeun Lee2, Yeonghwa So3, Sung-Il Cho4,5.
Abstract
Background: Scrub typhus is an important public health issue in Korea. Risk factors for scrub typhus include both individual-level factors and environmental drivers, and some are related to the increased density of vector mites and rodents, the natural hosts of the mites. In this regard, deforestation is a potential risk factor, because the deforestation-induced secondary growth of scrub vegetation may increase the densities of mites and rodents. To examine this hypothesis, this study investigated the association between scrub typhus and deforestation.Entities:
Keywords: One Health; deforestation; scrub typhus; spatiotemporal models
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31035715 PMCID: PMC6539434 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16091518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The number of cases of scrub typhus reported annually in Korea.
Data acquired in this study.
| Category 1 | Category 2 | Variables | Data Source | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response variable | Outcome | Scrub typhus incidence | KCDC a | [ |
| Explanatory variable | Deforestation | Deforestation | GFC b | [ |
| Covariates | Sociodemographics | Population density of | KOSIS c | [ |
| farmers | KOSIS | |||
| Economy | Budget dependency | KOSIS | ||
| Meteorology | Average temperature | KMA ASOS d | [ | |
| Precipitation | KMA ASOS | |||
| Relative humidity | KMA ASOS | |||
| Total sunlight time | KMA ASOS | |||
| Land cover | Agriculture (paddy) | KOSIS | ||
| Agriculture (all) | KOSIS | |||
| Urban area | KOSIS | |||
| Forest | GFC | |||
| Geography | Elevation | SRTM e | [ | |
| Extent | KOSIS |
a KCDC: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, b GFC: Global Forest Change, c KOSIS: Korean Statistical Information Service, d KMA ASOS: Korea Meteorological Administration Automatic Synoptic Observation System, e SRTM: Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Note: The total extent area and agricultural land cover (all) were excluded from the model because the variance inflation factor was greater than 10.
Descriptive analysis of the variables used in the models by the incidence of scrub typhus.
| Variables | Districts with Higher Incidence (>Median a, n = 125) Mean (±SD) | Districts with Lower Incidence (≤Median a, n = 125) Mean (±SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Scrub typhus cases (all cases; 2006–2017) | 628.22 ± 314.8 | 97.98 ± 59.7 |
| Deforestation (2006–2017, sum, km2) | 7.11 ± 9.5 | 6.45 ± 11.0 |
| Population density (103 per km2) | 1.87 ± 3.5 | 6.19 ± 7.5 |
| Farmers (103) | 15.84 ± 10.9 | 7.43 ± 8.0 |
| Budget dependency (%) | 24.09 ± 12.7 | 34.92 ± 17.6 |
| Mean temperature (°C) | 13.40 ± 0.9 | 12.20 ± 0.8 |
| Precipitation (mm) | 1288.17 ± 133.4 | 1274.31 ± 104.4 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 68.46 ± 3.4 | 66.98 ± 1.4 |
| Total sunlight time (h) | 2132.03 ± 40.3 | 2157.14 ± 21.1 |
| Agriculture (paddy, m2) | 9700.58 ± 8158.0 | 3875.44 ± 5150.8 |
| Urban area (km2) | 88.77 ± 87.4 | 55.52 ± 56.6 |
| Forest (km2) | 198.07 ± 194.0 | 222.24 ± 354.1 |
| Elevation (mean, m) | 158.33 ± 117.0 | 182.41 ± 175.8 |
Note: All variables in this table were used in the regression models in this study. a Among the 250 districts, the median incidence of scrub typhus was 263.5 cases during the period 2006–2017.
Relative risks of scrub typhus by interquartile range increase for each explanatory variable from the non-spatial models.
| Variables | Relative Risk (95% Credible Interval) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poisson | ZIP a | NB b | ZINB c | |
| Deforestation | 1.20 (1.20–1.21) | 1.19 (1.19–1.20) | 1.22 (1.17–1.27) | 1.22 (1.18–1.26) |
| Population density | 0.57 (0.57–0.58) | 0.56 (0.55–0.57) | 0.67 (0.64–0.70) | 0.66 (0.63–0.69) |
| Farmers | 0.76 (0.75–0.77) | 0.73 (0.72–0.74) | 0.94 (0.84–1.04) | 0.93 (0.84–1.03) |
| Budget dependency | 0.86 (0.85–0.87) | 0.90 (0.89–0.92) | 0.77 (0.72–0.82) | 0.79 (0.74–0.84) |
| Mean temperature | 1.97 (1.95–2.00) | 1.98 (1.96–2.01) | 2.43 (2.27–2.61) | 2.47 (2.30–2.64) |
| Precipitation | 1.02 (1.00–1.03) | 1.02 (1.00–1.03) | 0.97 (0.90–1.04) | 0.97 (0.90–1.03) |
| Relative humidity | 1.15 (1.14–1.16) | 1.16 (1.15–1.17) | 1.32 (1.25–1.40) | 1.32 (1.25–1.40) |
| Total sunlight time | 1.04 (1.01–1.08) | 1.05 (1.02 -1.08) | 1.10 (0.96–1.26) | 1.11 (0.97–1.26) |
| Agriculture | 1.51 (1.50–1.53) | 1.50 (1.49–1.52) | 1.46 (1.35–1.58) | 1.44 (1.34–1.56) |
| Urban area | 0.98 (0.98–0.99) | 0.97 (0.97–0.98) | 0.99 (0.96–1.02) | 0.99 (0.96–1.02) |
| Forest | 0.72 (0.71–0.74) | 0.74 (0.73–0.76) | 0.67 (0.62–0.73) | 0.68 (0.63–0.73) |
| Elevation | 1.27 (1.25–1.29) | 1.30 (1.28–1.32) | 1.30 (1.21–1.41) | 1.31 (1.21–1.41) |
| DIC d | 65,791.8 | 62,488.92 | 24,522.27 | 24,498.22 |
Note: Bayesian regression models with Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) were used and the time variable (year) was included as a random walk structure, but spatial structure was not considered in the model. a Zero-inflated Poisson; b Negative binomial; c Zero-inflated negative binomial; d Deviance information criterion.
Relative risks of scrub typhus by interquartile range increase for each explanatory variable from spatiotemporal models.
| Variables | Relative risk (95% Credible Interval) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poisson | ZIP a | NB b | ZINB c | |
| Deforestation | 1.16 (1.15–1.17) | 1.15 (1.14–1.16) | 1.20 (1.15–1.25) | 1.20 (1.15–1.24) |
| Population density | 0.63 (0.62–0.65) | 0.64 (0.63–0.65) | 0.70 (0.67–0.74) | 0.70 (0.66–0.74) |
| Farmers | 0.86 (0.84–0.88) | 0.83 (0.81–0.84) | 0.92 (0.83–1.02) | 0.89 (0.81–0.99) |
| Budget dependency | 0.88 (0.87–0.90) | 0.93 (0.91–0.95) | 0.77 (0.71–0.83) | 0.81 (0.75–0.87) |
| Mean temperature | 1.65 (1.62–1.69) | 1.69 (1.66–1.73) | 2.24 (2.06–2.43) | 2.28 (2.10–2.47) |
| Precipitation | 0.93 (0.91–0.95) | 0.92 (0.90–0.94) | 0.94 (0.86–1.02) | 0.92 (0.85–1.00) |
| Relative humidity | 1.09 (1.07–1.11) | 1.10 (1.09–1.12) | 1.29 (1.20–1.38) | 1.29 (1.21–1.38) |
| Total sunlight time | 1.20 (1.14–1.25) | 1.16 (1.11–1.22) | 1.17 (1.02–1.36) | 1.18 (1.02–1.36) |
| Agriculture | 1.41 (1.39–1.42) | 1.40 (1.39–1.42) | 1.50 (1.39–1.62) | 1.48 (1.37–1.59) |
| Urban area | 0.97 (0.82–0.86) | 0.97 (0.96–0.97) | 1.00 (0.97–1.04) | 1.00 (0.97–1.03) |
| Forest | 0.84 (0.82–0.86) | 0.88 (0.86–0.89) | 0.73 (0.67–0.79) | 0.75 (0.69–0.81) |
| Elevation | 1.33 (1.30–1.35) | 1.31 (1.28–1.33) | 1.29 (1.20–1.39) | 1.28 (1.19–1.38) |
| DIC d | 52,380.41 | 49,848.48 | 24,187.01 | 24,109.29 |
Note: Bayesian regression models with INLA were used and the time variable (year) was included as a random walk structure, and spatial autocorrelation was also considered with bym models. a Zero-inflated Poisson; b Negative binomial; c Zero-inflated negative binomial; d Deviance information criterion.
The results of the sensitivity analysis using different deforestation accumulation periods.
| Accumulation Period for Assessing Deforestation | Relative Risk (95% Credible Interval) | Deviance Information Criterion |
|---|---|---|
| One years | 1.153 (1.116–1.192) | 24,123.36 |
| Two years | 1.188 (1.146–1.233) | 24,112.64 |
| Three years | 1.196 (1.152–1.242) | 24,109.29 |
| Four years | 1.207 (1.161–1.256) | 24,111.03 |
| Five years | 1.213 (1.167–1.261) | 24,101.32 |
| Six years | 1.207 (1.162–1.255) | 24,102.20 |
Note: The relative risks (RR) were for an increase in deforestation level by interquartile range, and the zero-inflated negative binomial model with spatial autocorrelation, which had the lowest deviance information criterion value, was used to produce the RR. Other variables were used to adjust for potential confounding effects, including population density, the number of farmers, budget dependency, temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, amount of sunlight, agricultural land use, urban land cover, forest land cover, and altitude.