Search

Abstract Background Local measurements of health behaviors, diseases, and use of health services are critical inputs into local, state, and national decision-making. Small area measurement methods can deliver more precise and accurate local-level information than direct estimates from surveys or administrative records, where sample sizes are often too small to yield acceptable standard errors. However, small area measurement requires careful validation using approaches other than conventional statistical methods such as in-sample or cross-validation methods because they do not solve the problem of validating estimates in data-sparse domains. Methods A new general framework for small area estimation and validation is developed and applied to estimate Type 2 diabetes prevalence in US counties using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The framework combines the three conventional approaches to small area measurement: (1) pooling data across time by combining multiple survey years; (2) exploiting spatial correlation by including a spatial component; and (3) utilizing structured relationships between the outcome variable and domain-specific covariates to define four increasingly complex model types - coined the Naive, Geospatial, Covariate, and Full models. The validation framework uses direct estimates of prevalence in large domains as the gold standard and compares model estimates against it using (i) all available observations for the large domains and (ii) systematically reduced sample sizes obtained through random sampling with replacement. At each sampling level, the model is rerun repeatedly, and the validity of the model estimates from the four model types is then determined by calculating the (average) concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and (average) root mean squared error (RMSE) against the gold standard. The CCC is closely related to the intraclass correlation coefficient and can be used when the units are organized in groups and when it is of interest to measure the agreement between units in the same group (e.g., counties). The RMSE is often used to measure the differences between values predicted by a model or an estimator and the actually observed values. It is a useful measure to capture the precision of the model or estimator. Results All model types have substantially higher CCC and lower RMSE than the direct, single-year BRFSS estimates. In addition, the inclusion of relevant domain-specific covariates generally improves predictive validity, especially at small sample sizes, and their leverage can be equivalent to a five- to tenfold increase in sample size. Conclusions Small area estimation of important health outcomes and risk factors can be improved using a systematic modeling and validation framework, which consistently outperformed single-year direct survey estimates and demonstrated the potential leverage of including relevant domain-specific covariates compared to pure measurement models. The proposed validation strategy can be applied to other disease outcomes and risk factors in the US as well as to resource-scarce situations, including low-income countries. These estimates are needed by public health officials to identify at-risk groups, to design targeted prevention and intervention programs, and to monitor and evaluate results over time.

Background: Modifiable risks account for a large fraction of disease and death, but clinicians and patients lack tools to identify high risk populations or compare the possible benefit of different interventions. Methods: We used data on the distribution of exposure to 12 major behavioral and biometric risk factors in the US population, mortality rates by cause, and estimates of the proportional hazards of risk factor exposure from published systematic reviews to develop a risk prediction model that estimates an adult's 10 year mortality risk compared to a population with optimum risk factors. We compared predicted risk to observed mortality in 8,241 respondents in NHANES 1988-1994 and NHANES 1999-2004 with linked mortality data up to the end of 2006. Results: Predicted risk showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.84 (standard error 0.01) for women and 0.84 (SE 0.01) for men. Across deciles of predicted risk, mortality was accurately predicted in men (X² statistic = 12.3 for men, p=0.196) but slightly overpredicted in the highest decile among women (X² statistic = 22.8, p=0.002). Mortality risk was highly concentrated; for example, among those age 30-44 years, 5.1 % (95 % CI 4.1 % - 6.0 %) of the male and 5.9 % (95 % CI 4.8 % - 6.9 %) of the female population accounted for 25 % of the risk of death. Conclusion: The risk model accurately predicted mortality in a representative sample of the US population and could be used to help inform patient and provider decision-making, identify high risk groups, and monitor the impact of efforts to improve population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The United States spends more than any other country on health care. The poor relative performance of the US compared to other high-income countries has attracted attention and raised questions about the performance of the US health system. An important dimension to poor national performance is the large disparities in life expectancy. Methods: We applied a mixed effects Poisson statistical model and Gaussian Process Regression to estimate age-specific mortality rates for US counties from 1985 to 2010. We generated uncertainty distributions for life expectancy at each age using standard simulation methods. Results: Female life expectancy in the United States increased from 78.0 years in 1985 to 80.9 years in 2010, while male life expectancy increased from 71.0 years in 1985 to 76.3 years in 2010. The gap between female and male life expectancy in the United States was 7.0 years in 1985, narrowing to 4.6 years in 2010. For males at the county level, the highest life expectancy steadily increased from 75.5 in 1985 to 81.7 in 2010, while the lowest life expectancy remained under 65. For females at the county level, the highest life expectancy increased from 81.1 to 85.0, and the lowest life expectancy remained around 73. For male life expectancy at the county level, there have been three phases in the evolution of inequality: a period of rising inequality from 1985 to 1993, a period of stable inequality from 1993 to 2002, and rising inequality from 2002 to 2010. For females, in contrast, inequality has steadily increased during the 25-year period. Compared to only 154 counties where male life expectancy remained stagnant or declined, 1,405 out of 3,143 counties (45%) have seen no significant change or a significant decline in female life expectancy from 1985 to 2010. In all time periods, the lowest county-level life expectancies are seen in the South, the Mississippi basin, West Virginia, Kentucky, and selected counties with large Native American populations. Conclusions: The reduction in the number of counties where female life expectancy at birth is declining in the most recent period is welcome news. However, the widening disparities between counties and the slow rate of increase compared to other countries should be viewed as a call for action. An increased focus on factors affecting health outcomes, morbidity, and mortality such as socioeconomic factors, difficulty of access to and poor quality of health care, and behavioral, environmental, and metabolic risk factors is urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]