| Literature DB >> 31060533 |
Sylvester Dodzi Nyadanu1, Gavin Pereira2,3, Derek Ngbandor Nawumbeni4, Timothy Adampah4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, exploratory spatial data analysis is for problem solving, hypothesis generation and knowledge construction. Unless geographically weighted regression, sophisticated spatial regression models best control spatial heterogeneity in outcomes and the associated risk factors but cannot visually display and identify areas of the significant associations. The under-utilised excess risk maps (ERMs) and conditioned choropleth maps (CCMs) are useful to address this issue and simplify epidemiological information to public health stakeholders without much statistical backgrounds. Using malaria and sociodemographic determinants in Ghana as case study, this paper applied ERM and CCM techniques for identification of areas at elevated risk of disease-risk factor co-location.Entities:
Keywords: Conditioned choropleth maps; Excess risk maps; Sociodemographic determinants
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31060533 PMCID: PMC6501453 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6816-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1The globe showing Ghana (red) within Africa centered (Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ghana_on_the_globe_(Africa_centered).svg
Malaria incidence per 10,000 at-risk in Ghana for the period 2010 – 2014
| Statistics | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Average rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. (location) | 4 (Sekyere central) | 4 (Fanteakwa) | 22 (Chereponi) | 190 (Accra metro) | 9 (Bosome Freho) | 157 (Accra metro.) |
| Max. (location) | 4396 (Bawku West) | 4665 (Sunyani municipal) | 12110 (Ahanta West) | 6569 (Bawku West) | 20120 (Sekyere East) | 6473 (Sekyere East) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 2A 2010 – 2014 average incidence of malaria for the 170 districts in Ghana, grouped by five Jenks natural breaks. Numbers in the brackets indicate the number of districts for the rate ranges. The map was generated using GeoDa statistical software version 1.12
Fig. 3Distribution of excess malaria incidence in Ghana with respect to the statistically significant sociodemographic factors as base covariate, indicating the number and percentage of districts having malaria incidence greater than expected incidence. The colour codes indicate the relative or excess risk of each predictor variable and the numbers in the brackets represent the number of district. The maps were generated using GeoDa statistical software version 1.12
Non-spatial correlation (Pearson) and spatial correlation (Bivariate Moran’s I) between pairs of statistically significant covariates for districts in Ghana
| Pairwise risk factors | #Non-spatial Pearson's correlation | Spatial Bivariate correlation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | Moran's I | |||
| Basic edu-Intermigration | 0.001 | 0.992 | 0.032 | 0.064 |
| Basic edu-Intramigration | -0.039 | 0.610 | -0.003 | 0.373 |
| Basic edu-Urban | 0.969** | 0.000 | 0.113* | 0.023 |
| Basic edu-Emp.-to-pop. ratio | 0.925** | 0.000 | 0.145* | 0.018 |
| Basic edu-No/other religion | 0.861** | 0.000 | 0.094* | 0.025 |
| Basic edu-Agric household | -0.014 | 0.854 | 0.013 | 0.198 |
| Intermigration-Urban | -0.028 | 0.719 | -0.008 | 0.404 |
| Intermigration- Intramigration | 0.612** | 0.000 | 0.028 | 0.062 |
| Intermigration-Emp.-to-pop. ratio | -0.011 | 0.888 | -0.0005 | 0.240 |
| Intermigration-No/other religion | -0.046 | 0.552 | -0.046* | 0.043 |
| Intermigration-Agric household | 0.867** | 0.000 | 0.030* | 0.047 |
| Intramigration-Urban | -0.052 | 0.497 | -0.0209 | 0.288 |
| Intramigration-Emp.-to-pop. ratio | -0.040 | 0.607 | -0.015 | 0.418 |
| Intramigration-No/other religion | -0.084 | 0.275 | -0.069* | 0.007 |
| Intramigration-Agric household | 0.915** | 0.000 | 0.115* | 0.025 |
| Urban-Emp.-to-pop. ratio | 0.941** | 0.000 | 0.145* | 0.019 |
| Urban-No/other religion | 0.860** | 0.000 | 0.098* | 0.026 |
| Urban-Agric household | -0.050 | 0.521 | -0.034 | 0.059 |
| Emp.-to-pop. ratio- No/other rel. | 0.835** | 0.000 | 0.104* | 0.022 |
| Emp.-to-pop.ratio-Agric household | -0.030 | 0.693 | -0.015 | 0.388 |
| No/other rel.-Agric household | -0.075 | 0.331 | -0.128* | 0.001 |
** Non-spatial correlation is significant at p< 0.01 (2-tailed)
*spatial correlation is significant at pseudo p < 0.05 for conditional 999 permutations
# Spatial correlation is most appropriate but the spatial correlation was much smaller than the non-spatial correlation and the departure from independence is consistent but weak. The assumption of spatial independence may have affected the non-spatial correlation result
Fig. 4Malaria incidence conditioned on basic education-urban population where districts with relatively high rates due to co-location of the two risk factors were indicated by the different intensities of the brown colour. Numbers in the brackets indicate the number of districts for the rate as influenced by the two predictor variables. The maps were generated using GeoDa statistical software version 1.12
Global spatial autocorrelation of risk factors and their correlation with malaria incidence
| Risk factors | Global spatial autocorrelation | #Pearson's correlation with outcome rate | Bivariate spatial correlation with outcome rate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate Moran's I | Pseudo | z-value | Pearson's r | Bivariate Moran's I | Pseudo | z-value | ||
| Basic education | 0.138*** | 0.019 | 3.193 | -0.226* | 0.003 | -0.062*** | 0.042 | -1.493 |
| Illiteracy | 0.013 | 0.056 | 1.650 | -0.103 | 0.180 | -0.0004 | 0.465 | -0.069 |
| Religion | ||||||||
| Christian | -0.009 | 0.275 | -0.072 | -0.057 | 0.457 | -0.019 | 0.329 | -0.491 |
| Muslim | 0.277*** | 0.002 | 5.186 | -0.137 | 0.075 | -0.039 | 0.140 | -0.971 |
| Traditional | 0.657*** | 0.001 | 10.855 | 0.014 | 0.856 | 0.019 | 0.324 | 0.414 |
| None/Other | 0.176*** | 0.010 | 3.671 | -0.194* | 0.011 | -0.064*** | 0.046 | -1.505 |
| Urban lev. | 0.117*** | 0.022 | 2.860 | -0.174* | 0.023 | -0.053 | 0.070 | -1.287 |
| Insanitary lev. | 0.018 | 0.080 | 0.881 | -0.002 | 0.983 | 0.008 | 0.374 | 0.226 |
| Intermigration | -0.001 | 0.125 | 0.828 | 0.184* | 0.016 | 0.089*** | 0.038 | 1.969 |
| Intramigration | 0.102*** | 0.034 | 2.100 | 0.144 | 0.060 | 0.111*** | 0.020 | 2.402 |
| Traditional housing unit | 0.030 | 0.129 | 0.849 | -0.122 | 0.112 | -0.021 | 0.314 | -0.523 |
| Household overcrowding index | 0.076*** | 0.031 | 2.112 | -0.148 | 0.054 | -0.034 | 0.190 | -0.836 |
| Pop. density | 0.018 | 0.080 | 0.881 | -0.002 | 0.984 | 0.008 | 0.374 | 0.227 |
| Dependency ratio | 0.550*** | 0.001 | 9.051 | -0.020 | 0.795 | 0.070 | 0.050 | 1.627 |
| Employment to-population ratio | 0.185*** | 0.012 | 4.777 | -0.189* | 0.014 | -0.061*** | 0.042 | -1.503 |
| Agric household | 0.122*** | 0.021 | 2.8055 | 0.178* | 0.020 | 0.115*** | 0.015 | 2.536 |
* significance level at p< 0.05 (2-tailed); ** significance level at p< 0.01 (2-tailed)
***spatial significance level at pseudo p < 0.05 for conditional 999 permutations.
# Spatial correlation is most appropriate but the spatial correlation was much smaller than the non-spatial correlation and the departure from independence is consistent but weak. The assumption of spatial independence may have affected the non-spatial correlation result.