Thomas Astell-Burt1,2,3,4, Michael A Navakatikyan1, Leonard F Arnolda5, Xiaoqi Feng1,2,6. 1. Population Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab (PowerLab), School of Health and Society, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China. 4. School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Peking Union Medical College, The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 5. Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute (IHMRI), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. 6. School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test relatively simple and complex models for examining model fit, higher-level variation in, and correlates of, GP consultations, where known nonhierarchical data structures are present. SETTING: New South Wales (NSW), Australia. DESIGN: Association between socioeconomic circumstances and geographic remoteness with GP consultation frequencies per participant was assessed using single-level, hierarchical, and multiple membership cross-classified (MMCC) models. Models were adjusted for age, gender, and a range of socioeconomic and demographic confounds. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A total of 261,930 participants in the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study were linked to all GP consultation records (Medicare Benefits Schedule; Department of Human Services) within 12 months of baseline (2006-2009). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Deviance information criterion values indicated the MMCC negative binomial regression was the best fitting model, relative to an MMCC Poisson equivalent and simpler hierarchical and single-level models. Between-area variances were relatively consistent across models, even when between GP variation was estimated. Lower rates of GP consultation outside of major cities were only observed once between-GP variation was assessed simultaneously with between-area variation in the MMCC models. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the MMCC model is necessary for estimation of variances and effect sizes in sources of big data on primary care in which complex nonhierarchical clustering by geographical area and GP is present.
OBJECTIVE: To test relatively simple and complex models for examining model fit, higher-level variation in, and correlates of, GP consultations, where known nonhierarchical data structures are present. SETTING: New South Wales (NSW), Australia. DESIGN: Association between socioeconomic circumstances and geographic remoteness with GP consultation frequencies per participant was assessed using single-level, hierarchical, and multiple membership cross-classified (MMCC) models. Models were adjusted for age, gender, and a range of socioeconomic and demographic confounds. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A total of 261,930 participants in the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study were linked to all GP consultation records (Medicare Benefits Schedule; Department of Human Services) within 12 months of baseline (2006-2009). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Deviance information criterion values indicated the MMCC negative binomial regression was the best fitting model, relative to an MMCC Poisson equivalent and simpler hierarchical and single-level models. Between-area variances were relatively consistent across models, even when between GP variation was estimated. Lower rates of GP consultation outside of major cities were only observed once between-GP variation was assessed simultaneously with between-area variation in the MMCC models. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the MMCC model is necessary for estimation of variances and effect sizes in sources of big data on primary care in which complex nonhierarchical clustering by geographical area and GP is present.
Authors: Emma Liu; Pablo Santibáñez; Martin L Puterman; Leah Weber; Xiang Ma; Antoine Sauré; Ivo A Olivotto; Ross Halperin; John French; Scott Tyldesley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anastasia F Hutchinson; Marnie Graco; Tshepo Mokuedi Rasekaba; Sumit Parikh; David John Berlowitz; Wen Kwang Lim Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: O Dejardin; A P Jones; B Rachet; E Morris; V Bouvier; V Jooste; E Coombes; D Forman; A M Bouvier; G Launoy Journal: Health Place Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 4.078