ArticlePloS one2015
Improving the Rank Precision of Population Health Measures for Small Areas with Longitudinal and Joint Outcome Models.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparities in years of potential life lost among racial and ethnic groups in Washington state.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- Value-based focused global population health management.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute has published the County Health Rankings since 2010. These rankings use population-based data to highlight health outcomes and the multiple determinants of these outcomes and to encourage in-depth health assessment for all United States counties. A significant methodological limitation, however, is the uncertainty of rank estimates, particularly for small counties. To address this challenge, we explore the use of longitudinal and pooled outcome data in hierarchical Bayesian models to generate county ranks with greater precision.
methodsIn our models we used pooled outcome data for three measure groups: (1) Poor physical and poor mental health days; (2) percent of births with low birth weight and fair or poor health prevalence; and (3) age-specific mortality rates for nine age groups. We used the fixed and random effects components of these models to generate posterior samples of rates for each measure. We also used time-series data in longitudinal random effects models for age-specific mortality. Based on the posterior samples from these models, we estimate ranks and rank quartiles for each measure, as well as the probability of a county ranking in its assigned quartile. Rank quartile probabilities for univariate, joint outcome, and/or longitudinal models were compared to assess improvements in rank precision.
resultsThe joint outcome model for poor physical and poor mental health days resulted in improved rank precision, as did the longitudinal model for age-specific mortality rates. Rank precision for low birth weight births and fair/poor health prevalence based on the univariate and joint outcome models were equivalent.
conclusionIncorporating longitudinal or pooled outcome data may improve rank certainty, depending on characteristics of the measures selected. For measures with different determinants, joint modeling neither improved nor degraded rank precision. This approach suggests a simple way to use existing information to improve the precision of small-area measures of population health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.