| Literature DB >> 36048843 |
Gretta Mohan1,2, Seán Lyons1,2.
Abstract
Evidence concerning the effects of indicators of waterborne pathogens on healthcare systems is of importance for policymaking, future infrastructure considerations and healthcare planning. This paper examines the association between the detection of E. coli in water tests associated with drinking water supplies and the use of healthcare services by older people in Ireland. Uniquely, three sources of data are linked to conduct the analysis. Administrative records of E. coli exceedances recorded from routine water quality tests carried out by Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency are first linked to maps of water systems infrastructure in Ireland. Then, residential addresses of participants of The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (TILDA), a nationally representative survey of over 50-year-olds in Ireland, are linked to the water systems dataset which has the associated water quality monitoring information. Multivariate regression analysis estimates a greater incident rate ratio (IRR) of General Practitioner (GP) visits in the previous year where E. coli is detected in the water supply associated with an older person's residence (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 1.118; [95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.019-1.227]), controlling for demographic and socio-economic factors, health insurance coverage, health, and health behaviours. Where E. coli is detected in water, a higher IRR is also estimated for visits to an Emergency Department (IRR: 1.292; [95% CI: 0.995-1.679]) and nights spent in hospital (IRR: 1.351 [95% CI: 1.004-1.818]).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36048843 PMCID: PMC9436125 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273870
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Hypothetical worked example of mapping of E. coli exceedance, water supply and residence.
Characteristics of sample.
|
| 7,643 | |||||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 3.6 | 3.5 | 12.2 | 0 | 20 | |
|
| 0.17 | 0.47 | 0.22 | 0 | 3 | |
|
| 0.15 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 0 | 3 | |
|
| ||||||
|
| 87.3 | |||||
|
| 13.7 | |||||
|
| 11.7 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| 4.0 | ||||||
|
| 21.5 | |||||
|
| ||||||
|
| Male | 45.8 | ||||
| Female | 54.2 | |||||
|
| Mean | 63.7 | ||||
|
| 50–59 | 40.4 | ||||
| 60–69 | 32.0 | |||||
| 70+ | 27.6 | |||||
|
| Married | 69.7 | ||||
| Not married: never married, separated, divorced, widowed | 30.3 | |||||
|
| Primary | 30.0 | ||||
| Secondary | 40.3 | |||||
| Tertiary | 29.7 | |||||
|
| Retired | 37.0 | ||||
| Employed/self-employed | 36.7 | |||||
| Unemployed | 4.9 | |||||
| Looking after home/family | 15.6 | |||||
| Other | 5.8 | |||||
|
| Medical card | 46.8 | ||||
| No medical card | 53.2 | |||||
|
| Private health insurance | 41.8 | ||||
| No private health insurance | 58.2 | |||||
|
| Good/very good/excellent | 78.2 | ||||
| Fair/poor | 21.8 | |||||
|
| Has IADL impairment | 11.0 | ||||
| No IADL impairment | 89.0 | |||||
|
| Depression symptoms | 9.2 | ||||
| No depression | 90.8 | |||||
|
| Smokes | 18.0 | ||||
| Non smoker | 82.0 | |||||
|
| High | 34.2 | ||||
| Medium | 34.8 | |||||
| Low | 31.0 | |||||
|
| 0 | 28.8 | ||||
| 1–2 | 30.3 | |||||
| 3–4 | 20.9 | |||||
| > = 5 | 19.9 | |||||
Fig 2Use of healthcare by E. coli exceedance during preceding year at respondent’s residence.
Estimation results from negative binomial modelling on outcomes: GP visits, ED visits and hospital nights, estimates reported as incidence rate ratios.
| Observations: 7,643 Clusters: 5,909 | GP VISITS | ED VISITS | HOSPITAL NIGHTS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Not mapped | 1.002 (0.029) | 1.020 (0.028) | 1.028 (0.026) | 1.031 (0.025) | 0.892 (0.072) | 0.924 (0.074) | 0.933 (0.074) | 0.935 (0.074) | 1.004 (0.085) | 1.026 (0.086) | 1.036 (0.086) | 1.039 (0.086) |
| Intercept | 3.545 | 1.095 (0.536) | 1.161 (0.547) | 2.701 | 0.171 | 0.077 | 0.089 | 0.167 (0.241) | 0.144 | 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Overdispersion parameter (ln alpha) | -0.537 | -0.828 | -1.015 | -1.264 | 0.621 | 0.514 | 0.280 | 0.201 | 0.913 | 0.776 | 0.490 | 0.304 |
| Log Likelihood | -18095.5 | -17435.0 | -17061.3 | -16545.9 | -3687.5 | -3649.7 | -3576.0 | -3546.9 | -3325.3 | -3277.5 | -3192.7 | -3127.4 |
a * p<0.1
** p<0.05
***p<0.01. (Standard errors clustered on TILDA households in parentheses). 95% Confidence intervals in square brackets.
b Full model results displayed in S1 Tables 1–3 of the S1 File.
c Model (1): Exceedance, not mapped.
Model (2): (1) + male, age, age squared, married, education attainment, employment status, medical card status, private health insurance status.
Model (3): (2) + self-rated health (as good or better), any difficulties with instrumental daily living, depression status (as measured by CESD-8).
Model (4): (3) + smoking status, level of physical activity, number of regular medicines category.