| Literature DB >> 35206271 |
Kurubaran Ganasegeran1, Mohd Fadzly Amar Jamil1,2, Maheshwara Rao Appannan3, Alan Swee Hock Ch'ng1,4, Irene Looi1,4, Kalaiarasu M Peariasamy2.
Abstract
As COVID-19 dispersion occurs at different levels of gradients across geographies, the application of spatiotemporal science via computational methods can provide valuable insights to direct available resources and targeted interventions for transmission control. This ecological-correlation study evaluates the spatial dispersion of COVID-19 and its temporal relationships with crucial demographic and socioeconomic determinants in Malaysia, utilizing secondary data sources from public domains. By aggregating 51,476 real-time active COVID-19 case-data between 22 January 2021 and 4 February 2021 to district-level administrative units, the incidence, global and local Moran indexes were calculated. Spatial autoregressive models (SAR) complemented with geographical weighted regression (GWR) analyses were executed to determine potential demographic and socioeconomic indicators for COVID-19 spread in Malaysia. Highest active case counts were based in the Central, Southern and parts of East Malaysia regions of Malaysia. Countrywide global Moran index was 0.431 (p = 0.001), indicated a positive spatial autocorrelation of high standards within districts. The local Moran index identified spatial clusters of the main high-high patterns in the Central and Southern regions, and the main low-low clusters in the East Coast and East Malaysia regions. The GWR model, the best fit model, affirmed that COVID-19 spread in Malaysia was likely to be caused by population density (β coefficient weights = 0.269), followed by average household income per capita (β coefficient weights = 0.254) and GINI coefficient (β coefficient weights = 0.207). The current study concluded that the spread of COVID-19 was concentrated mostly in the Central and Southern regions of Malaysia. Population's average household income per capita, GINI coefficient and population density were important indicators likely to cause the spread amongst communities.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Malaysia; regression modelling; spatial analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206271 PMCID: PMC8871711 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1District-wise distribution across states and regions in Malaysia. Dark boundaries represent borders between states; light boundaries represent borders between districts; color shaded areas represent regions.
Figure 2QQ-plots showing (a) non-Gaussian distribution of COVID-19 cases per 10,000 population by districts; (b) approached normal distribution of logged transformed COVID-19 cases per 10,000 population by districts.
Figure 3(a) Quantile map of spatial distribution of COVID-19 incidence; (b) univariate LISA of cluster map; (c) univariate LISA significance map of spatial clustering and outliers.
Bivariate Moran’s I of COVID-19 Incidence According to National Indicators.
| Indicators | Moran’s |
|---|---|
| GINI coefficient | 0.10 (0.008) |
| Average household income per capita | 0.46 (0.001) |
| Coverage to primary healthcare | 0.01 (0.396) |
| Percentage of Bumiputera | 0.28 (0.001) |
| Percentage of Chinese | 0.20 (0.001) |
| Percentage of Indian | 0.36 (0.001) |
| Population density (Logged) | 0.41 (0.001) |
Key Regression Indicators of COVID-19 Incidence in Malaysia.
| Indicators | OLS Model | SLM Model | SEM Model | GWR Model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SE |
| SE |
| SE | |||||
| GINI coefficient | 2.261 | 0.903 | 0.013 | 1.931 | 0.837 | 0.021 | 1.558 | 0.833 | 0.041 | 0.207 |
| Average household income per capita | 0.271 | 0.073 | <0.001 | 0.266 | 0.067 | <0.001 | 0.263 | 0.066 | 0.003 | 0.254 |
| Coverage to primary healthcare | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.231 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.257 | 0.019 | 0.012 | 0.111 | 0.007 |
| Percentage of Bumiputera | −0.064 | 0.035 | 0.066 | −0.055 | 0.032 | 0.087 | −0.052 | 0.035 | 0.136 | −1.526 |
| Percentage of Chinese | −0.060 | 0.034 | 0.083 | −0.049 | 0.032 | 0.124 | −0.047 | 0.035 | 0.183 | −1.059 |
| Percentage of Indian | −0.052 | 0.035 | 0.137 | −0.053 | 0.032 | 0.104 | 0.043 | 0.036 | 0.227 | −0.130 |
| Population density (Logged) | 0.388 | 0.097 | <0.001 | 0.340 | 0.092 | <0.001 | 0.450 | 0.120 | <0.001 | 0.269 |
| Model Performance | ||||||||||
| Number of observations | 144 | 144 | 144 | 144 | ||||||
| Log likelihood | −117.936 | −112.277 | −108.317 | −105.645 | ||||||
| Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) | 251.871 | 242.553 | 232.635 | 229.435 | ||||||
| R square | 0.552 | 0.593 | 0.630 | 0.661 | ||||||
| Lag Coefficient (ρ) | - | 0.264 | - | - | ||||||
| Error Lag Value (λ) | - | - | 0.460 | - | ||||||
| Jarque–Bera | 12.584 ( | - | - | - | ||||||
| Breusch–Pagan | 15.805 ( | 15.832 ( | 15.868 ( | - | ||||||
| Koenker–Bassett | 13.446 ( | - | - | - | ||||||
OLS—Ordinary Least Squares; SLM—Spatial Lag Model; SEM—Spatial Error Model (SEM); GWR—Geographically Weighted Regression.
Figure 4Quantile maps of GWR β coefficients weights (a) GINI coefficient; (b) average household income per capita; (c) population density (logged).
Potential Indicators for Future Exploration.
| Potential Indicators |
|---|
| 1. Unemployment |
Note: B40—Bottom 40% household income group (household income range < MYR 4850 per month); M40—Middle 40% household income group (household income range MYR 4850–10,959); T20—Top 20% household income group (household income range ≥ MYR 10960) [34].