Back

Addressing spatial misalignment in population health research: a case study of US congressional district political metrics and county health data

Nethery, R. C.; Testa, C.; Tabb, L. P.; Hanage, W. P.; Chen, J. T.; Krieger, N.

2023-01-11 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.01.10.23284410 medRxiv
Show abstract

Areal spatial misalignment, which occurs when data on multiple variables are collected using mismatched boundary definitions, is a ubiquitous obstacle to data analysis in public health and social science research. As one example, the emerging sub-field studying the links between political context and health in the United States faces significant spatial misalignment-related challenges, as the congressional districts (CDs) over which political metrics are measured and administrative units, e.g., counties, for which health data are typically released, have a complex misalignment structure. Standard population-weighted data realignment procedures can induce measurement error and invalidate inference, which has prompted the development of fully model-based approaches for analyzing spatially misaligned data. One such approach, atom-based regression models (ABRM), holds particular promise but has scarcely been used in practice due to the lack of appropriate software or examples of implementation. ABRM use "atoms", the areas created by intersecting all sets of units on which variables of interest are measured, as the units of analysis and build models for the atom-level data, treating the atom-level variables (generally unmeasured) as latent variables. In this paper, we demonstrate the feasibility and strengths of the ABRM in a case study of the association between political representatives voting behavior (CD-level) and COVID-19 mortality rates (county-level) in a post-vaccine period. The adjusted ABRM results suggest that more conservative voting record is associated with an increase in COVID-19 mortality rates, with estimated associations smaller in magnitude but consistent in direction with those of standard realignment methods. The results also indicate that ABRM may enable more robust confounding adjustment and more realistic uncertainty estimates, properly representing the uncertainties arising from all analytic procedures. We also implement the ABRM in modern optimized Bayesian computing programs and make our code publicly available, which may enable these methods to be more widely adopted.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
3
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
7
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.9%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 24%
3.6%
9
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
11
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
14
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
15
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.9%
16
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
Biometrics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
19
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 47%
0.7%
23
Quantitative Biology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
24
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Patterns
70 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Physics
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%