| Literature DB >> 32563251 |
Long Li1, Jing Ma2, Yang Cheng1, Ling Feng3, Shaoshuai Wang3, Xiao Yun4, Shu Tao4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some studies have reported that air pollution exposure can have adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes. However, the disparity between urban and rural areas in the risk of preterm birth (PTB) has yet to be elucidated. Considering geographic contexts as homogeneous or ignoring urban-rural differences cannot accurately reveal the disparities in the health effects of air pollution under different geographic contexts. The aims of this study were to examine the disparities in the risks of PTB in three different regions and five urban-rural types and to investigate the extent to which fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure during the entire pregnancy can explain the variations.Entities:
Keywords: Air pollution exposure; Multilevel logistic model; Preterm birth; Spatial correlation; Urban–rural disparity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32563251 PMCID: PMC7305583 DOI: 10.1186/s12942-020-00218-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. 1Location of Hubei Province and its terrain and administrative division
Fig. 2Spatial distribution of annual PM2.5 concentration at the sub-district level in 2014 in Hubei Province
Fig. 3Overview of the methodology in this study
The definition of urban–rural continuum
| Code | Category | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City proper | Suburb | |||
| 121 | County town | County town | ||
| 122 | General town | General town | ||
| Countryside |
Fig. 4Distribution of preterm birth rate at sub-district level based on the spatial smoothing method in Hubei Province
Overview of neonatal samples and indicators of population and economy in 2014
| Province/city | Hubei | WH | XN | HS | HG | EZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop (10,000) | 5815.99 | 1033.80 | 248.92 | 244.92 | 626.25 | 105.88 |
| GDP (10 billion CNY) | 288.73 | 100.69 | 9.64 | 12.19 | 14.77 | 6.87 |
| GDP/Pop (1,000 CNY) | 49.64 | 97.40 | 38.73 | 49.77 | 23.58 | 64.88 |
| Sample | 429,865 | 68,026 | 33,036 | 26,396 | 52,034 | 10,289 |
| Sample/Pop (‰) | 7.39 | 6.58 | 13.27 | 10.78 | 8.31 | 9.72 |
Pop, total resident population; GDP, gross domestic product; CNY, Chinese yuan
Descriptive characteristics for variables used in multilevel models (%)
| Variable | Hubei | East | Middle | West |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 429,865 | 228,603 | 138,310 | 62,952 |
| GA (weeks) | ||||
| Mean (Std) | 39.24 (1.27) | 39.32 (1.26) | 39.14 (1.25) | 39.17 (1.32) |
| < 37 | 2.98 | 2.91 | 2.94 | 3.32 |
| Residence types | ||||
| City propera | 31.98 | 40.04 | 23.04 | 22.36 |
| County town | 10.45 | 9.94 | 9.10 | 15.24 |
| Suburb | 9.10 | 13.68 | 4.90 | 1.70 |
| General town | 41.19 | 31.81 | 58.65 | 36.89 |
| Countryside | 7.28 | 4.53 | 4.31 | 23.81 |
| PM2.5 exposure (30 μg/m3) | ||||
| Mean (Std) | 3.10 (1.18) | 3.63 (1.21) | 2.87 (0.61) | 1.69 (0.53) |
| Nationality | ||||
| | 96.89 | 99.63 | 99.35 | 81.55 |
| Minority | 3.11 | 0.37 | 0.65 | 18.45 |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean (Std) | 26.83 (4.50) | 26.95 (4.49) | 26.60 (4.32) | 26.91 (4.93) |
| < 20 | 2.29 | 1.95 | 2.08 | 3.96 |
| 20–24 | 30.49 | 29.85 | 32.04 | 29.39 |
| 25–29a | 43.98 | 44.22 | 44.72 | 41.50 |
| 30–34 | 16.49 | 17.13 | 15.38 | 16.65 |
| ≥ 35 | 6.75 | 6.85 | 5.79 | 8.49 |
| Educational level | ||||
| Elementary | 19.30 | 21.21 | 15.44 | 20.85 |
| Secondarya | 74.79 | 70.70 | 81.20 | 75.55 |
| Tertiary | 5.91 | 8.09 | 3.36 | 3.59 |
| Frequency of health checks | ||||
| < 5a | 78.31 | 63.25 | 95.19 | 95.91 |
| ≥ 5 | 21.69 | 36.75 | 4.81 | 4.09 |
| Parity | ||||
| Firstborn | 75.41 | 73.38 | 81.01 | 70.45 |
| Non-Firstborna | 24.59 | 26.62 | 18.99 | 29.55 |
| Infant sex | ||||
| Malea | 54.07 | 54.72 | 53.82 | 52.28 |
| Female | 45.93 | 45.28 | 46.18 | 47.72 |
| Income (1,000 CNY) | ||||
| Mean (Std) | 14.32 (7.20) | 15.89 (8.15) | 13.69 (4.82) | 9.98 (5.75) |
Std, standard deviation; CNY, Chinese yuan
“a” indicates reference group
Fig. 5Annual average PM2.5 concentration histograms for regions
Calculation of results of global Moran’s I (p values)
| Variable | PM2.5 concentration | Preterm rate | Bivariate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hubei | 0.970 (0.00)* | 0.861 (0.00)* | 0.106 (0.00)* |
| East | 0.968 (0.00)* | 0.940 (0.00)* | 0.697 (0.00)* |
| Middle | 0.872 (0.00)* | 0.856 (0.00)* | − 0.004 (0.44) |
| West | 0.927 (0.00)* | 0.731 (0.00)* | 0.049 (0.02)* |
Significant level: “*” p ≤ 0.05
Fig. 6Spatial distribution of bivariate LISA clusters
ORs of PM2.5 exposure variable in multilevel models
| Region | OR (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hubei | East | Middle | West | ||
| Model | 2 | 1.06 (1.04–1.09)* | 1.13 (1.10–1.16)* | 1.15 (1.07–1.23)* | 0.93 (0.82–1.07) |
| 4 | 0.98 (0.95–1.02) | 1.12 (1.06–1.20)* | 1.04 (0.96–1.13) | 0.88 (0.75–1.04) | |
| 5 | 0.99 (0.95–1.03) | 1.12 (1.05–1.20)* | 1.02 (0.94–1.11) | 0.83 (0.68–1.00) | |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval
Significant level: “*” p ≤ 0.05
ORs of residence type variables in multilevel models
| Model | Type | OR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hubei | East | Middle | West | ||
| 1 | County town | 0.79 (0.70–0.89)* | 0.74 (0.63–0.87)* | 0.76 (0.60–0.95)* | 0.88 (0.66–1.16) |
| Suburb | 0.80 (0.73–0.89)* | 0.79 (0.71–0.88)* | 0.86 (0.68–1.08) | 0.97 (0.58–1.62) | |
| General town | 0.73 (0.68–0.78)* | 0.72 (0.66–0.78)* | 0.69 (0.61–0.78)* | 0.81 (0.66–0.99)* | |
| Countryside | 0.87 (0.79–0.96)* | 0.79 (0.68–0.92)* | 0.75 (0.59–0.94)* | 0.96 (0.78–1.18) | |
| 3 | County town | 0.82 (0.72–0.93)* | 0.76 (0.64–0.91)* | 0.99 (0.77–1.27) | 0.74 (0.52–1.07) |
| Suburb | 0.85 (0.76–0.96)* | 0.88 (0.75–1.03) | 0.80 (0.64–1.01) | 0.99 (0.47–2.10) | |
| General town | 0.78 (0.69–0.87)* | 0.82 (0.68–0.99)* | 0.74 (0.59–0.94)* | 0.80 (0.45–1.44) | |
| Countryside | 0.91 (0.78–1.05) | 0.91 (0.73–1.13) | 0.77 (0.56–1.06) | 0.97 (0.53–1.78) | |
| 5 | County town | 0.81 (0.71–0.92)* | 0.82 (0.68–0.99)* | 1.01 (0.78–1.30) | 0.69 (0.47–1.00) |
| Suburb | 0.86 (0.76–0.96)* | 0.84 (0.71–0.98)* | 0.82 (0.64–1.04) | 1.15 (0.53–2.48) | |
| General town | 0.78 (0.69–0.88)* | 0.79 (0.65–0.96)* | 0.75 (0.59–0.94)* | 0.96 (0.52–1.79) | |
| Countryside | 0.91 (0.78–1.06) | 0.87 (0.70–1.09) | 0.77 (0.56–1.06) | 1.14 (0.61–2.13) | |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval
Significant level: “*” p ≤ 0.05
Fig. 7The odds ratios of PTB (solid line) and average PM2.5 exposure (dashed line) of five urban–rural types
ORs of individual socio-demographic variables in model 5
| Variable | OR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hubei | East | Middle | West | |
| Minority (ref: | 1.04 (0.93–1.16) | 0.99 (0.66–1.49) | 1.26 (0.88–1.80) | 0.95 (0.84–1.08) |
| Age (ref: 25–29) | ||||
| < 20 | 1.32 (1.18–1.48)* | 1.20 (1.01–1.44)* | 1.38 (1.13–1.69)* | 1.51 (1.21–1.88)* |
| 20–24 | 0.97 (0.93–1.02) | 0.93 (0.87–0.99)* | 0.96 (0.89–1.04) | 1.18 (1.06–1.33)* |
| 30–34 | 1.25 (1.19–1.32)* | 1.17 (1.09–1.26)* | 1.38 (1.26–1.50)* | 1.33 (1.17–1.51)* |
| ≥ 35 | 1.86 (1.75–1.98)* | 1.84 (1.69–2.00)* | 1.84 (1.64–2.07)* | 1.94 (1.68–2.24)* |
| Education (ref: secondary) | ||||
| Elementary | 0.97 (0.92–1.02) | 0.94 (0.88–1.01) | 0.96 (0.87–1.05) | 1.08 (0.96–1.22) |
| Tertiary | 0.98 (0.91–1.06) | 0.95 (0.87–1.05) | 0.95 (0.80–1.14) | 1.26 (1.01–1.59)* |
| Regular health checks (ref: check < 5) | 0.89 (0.83–0.95)* | 0.84 (0.77–0.91)* | 0.91 (0.78–1.08) | 1.22 (0.95–1.56) |
| Firstborn (ref: non–firstborn) | 1.04 (0.99–1.09) | 0.98 (0.92–1.04) | 1.22 (1.12–1.33)* | 0.98 (0.89–1.09) |
| Female (ref: male) | 0.79 (0.76–0.82)* | 0.78 (0.74–0.82)* | 0.79 (0.75–0.85)* | 0.84 (0.77–0.92)* |
| Income | 1.03 (0.96–1.10) | 0.96 (0.86–1.08) | 0.91 (0.77–1.07) | 0.94 (0.57–1.52) |
| Income ^2 | 1.04 (1.01–1.07)* | 1.02 (0.98–1.06) | 1.65 (1.34–2.03)* | 0.69 (0.52–0.93)* |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval
Significant level: “*” p ≤ 0.05