Dataset Information

Modeling Area-Level Health Rankings.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Rank county health using a Bayesian factor analysis model.

Data sources

Secondary county data from the National Center for Health Statistics (through 2007) and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (through 2009).

Study design

Our model builds on the existing county health rankings (CHRs) by using data-derived weights to compute ranks from mortality and morbidity variables, and by quantifying uncertainty based on population, spatial correlation, and missing data. We apply our model to Wisconsin, which has comprehensive data, and Texas, which has substantial missing information.

Data collection methods

The data were downloaded from www.countyhealthrankings.org.

Principal findings

Our estimated rankings are more similar to the CHRs for Wisconsin than Texas, as the data-derived factor weights are closer to the assigned weights for Wisconsin. The correlations between the CHRs and our ranks are 0.89 for Wisconsin and 0.65 for Texas. Uncertainty is especially severe for Texas given the state's substantial missing data.

Conclusions

The reliability of comprehensive CHRs varies from state to state. We advise focusing on the counties that remain among the least healthy after incorporating alternate weighting methods and accounting for uncertainty. Our results also highlight the need for broader geographic coverage in health data.

SUBMITTER: Courtemanche C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4600354 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Modeling Area-Level Health Rankings.

Courtemanche Charles C Soneji Samir S Tchernis Rusty R

Health services research 20150809 5

<h4>Objective</h4>Rank county health using a Bayesian factor analysis model.<h4>Data sources</h4>Secondary county data from the National Center for Health Statistics (through 2007) and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (through 2009).<h4>Study design</h4>Our model builds on the existing county health rankings (CHRs) by using data-derived weights to compute ranks from mortality and morbidity variables, and by quantifying uncertainty based on population, spatial correlation, and missing d ...[more]

PMID: 26256684

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHealth departments can be grouped together based on sociodemographic characteristics of the population served. Comparisons within these groups can then help with monitoring and improving the health of their populations.ObjectiveTo compare county-level percentile rankings on outcomes of smoking, motor vehicle crash deaths, and obesity within sociodemographic peer clusters vs nationwide rankings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, population-based study of demographic and health data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the 2016 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings data set was conducted at 3139 of 3143 US counties and county-equivalents. Four locations were excluded due to incomplete data. Data analysis was conducted between January and August 2017.ExposuresRandom forest algorithms were used to identify sociodemographic characteristics most associated with the outcomes of interest. These characteristics were race and ethnicity, educational attainment, age, marital status, employment status, sex, and health insurance status. k-means clustering was used to cluster counties based on these sociodemographic characteristics and the percentage of the county classified as rural.Main outcomes and measuresCounty-level smoking prevalence, motor vehicle crash death rate, and obesity prevalence. County percentile rankings on the outcomes of interest were compared in the national context and the within-cluster context.ResultsA total of 318?856?967 individuals (mean [SD] individuals per county, 101?579.2 [326?315]; 161?911?910 women [50.8%]) were represented by the 3139 counties used in this analysis. Eight distinct sociodemographic clusters throughout the United States were found. Cluster-specific percentile rankings for both smoking prevalence and motor vehicle crash death rates improved more than 70 percentile points for several counties in the rural, American Indian cluster compared with the nationwide percentiles. Conversely, the young, urban, middle to high socioeconomic status cluster included counties with cluster-specific percentile rankings that declined by 60 percentile points or more compared with the nationwide rankings for all 3 outcomes of interest.Conclusions and relevanceComparing county health outcomes on a nationwide or statewide basis fails to adequately account for sociodemographic context. Clustering counties by sociodemographic factors related to the outcome of interest allows a better understanding of other factors that may be shaping the prevalence of health outcomes. These groupings may also aid learning exchange.

Project description:A lack of evidence exists on the association between area-level income inequality and oral health within Australia. This study examined associations between area-level income inequality and oral health outcomes (inadequate dentition (<21 teeth) and poor self-rated oral health) among Australian adults. Variations in the association between area-level income inequality and oral health outcomes according to area-level mean income were also assessed. Finally, household-income gradients in oral health outcomes according to area-level income inequality were compared.For the analyses, data on Australian dentate adults (n = 5,165 nested in 435 Local Government Areas (LGAs)) was obtained from the National Dental Telephone Interview Survey-2013. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression models with random intercept and fixed slopes were fitted to test associations between area-level income inequality and oral health outcomes, examine variations in associations according to area-level mean income, and examine variations in household-income gradients in outcomes according to area-level income inequality. Covariates included age, sex, LGA-level mean weekly household income, geographic remoteness and household income.LGA-level income inequality was not associated with poor self-rated oral health and inversely associated with inadequate dentition (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.87) after adjusting for covariates. Inverse association between income inequality and inadequate dentition at the individual level was limited to LGAs within the highest tertile of mean weekly household income. Household income gradients in both outcomes showed poorer oral health at lower levels of household income. The household income gradients for inadequate dentition varied according to the LGA-level income inequality.Findings suggest that income inequality at the LGA-level in Australia is not positively associated with poorer oral health outcomes. Inverse association between income inequality and inadequate dentition is likely due to the contextual differences between Australia and other high-income countries.

Project description:Importance:The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Five-Star measure for nursing homes is designed with input from expert panels about the importance of multiple quality indicators. Consumers may assign different values to these indicators, creating different 5-star ratings. Objective:To compare nursing homes' rankings based on the CMS Five-Star measure with rankings based on consumers' judgment about the importance of the same quality indicators. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this quality improvement study, CMS Five-Star data were linked with a measure calculated from CMS quality indicators and consumer values obtained from a national survey. Data covered the last quarter of 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017. The study included 10?676 nursing homes, comprising 69.8% of those with reported Five-Star measures. The national survey included adults, either nursing home residents or their family members who reported being familiar with the quality of care their relative received. Data analysis was performed from January 2019 to February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:The contingent valuation method was administered via the survey to obtain consumers' relative values of the quality indicators, and statistical analyses were used to create the contingent valuation measure. Agreement in nursing home rankings was assessed using the Five-Star measure, which is based on weights developed by expert panels, compared with rankings based on the contingent valuation measure. Results:Among 10?676 study nursing homes with a mean (SD) of 119.4 (59.4) beds, 7845 (73.5%) were for profit, 6424 (61.8%) were part of a chain, and 8009 (75.0%) were urban. The 4310 survey respondents (mean [SD] age, 39.9 [15.6] years; 1143 [26.5%] men; 3448 [80%] white) included mostly family members (3879 participants [90.0%]). The Pearson correlation coefficient (0.65) and weighted ? statistics (0.48) indicated only moderate agreement between ranking of nursing homes' performance by the 2 measures and disagreement on ranking for approximately one-half of the nursing homes. Conclusions and Relevance:Current nursing home report cards might not reflect consumers' values and the relative importance consumers place on each of the quality indicators that compose the overall Five-Star measure. Quality report cards might be more relevant to consumers by augmenting the Five-Star measure with a measure reflecting consumers' preferences. It is unknown whether these conclusions are generalizable to other report cards, such as Hospital and Home Health Compare, without conducting similar studies for these report cards.

Dataset Information

Modeling Area-Level Health Rankings.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Data collection methods

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Modeling Area-Level Health Rankings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets