Dataset Information

Model-based small area estimation methods and precise district-level HIV prevalence estimates in Uganda.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Model-based small area estimation methods can help generate parameter estimates at the district level, where planned population survey sample sizes are not large enough to support direct estimates of HIV prevalence with adequate precision. We computed district-level HIV prevalence estimates and their 95% confidence intervals for districts in Uganda.

Methods

Our analysis used direct survey and model-based estimation methods, including Fay-Herriot (area-level) and Battese-Harter-Fuller (unit-level) small area models. We used regression analysis to assess for consistency in estimating HIV prevalence. We use a ratio analysis of the mean square error and the coefficient of variation of the estimates to evaluate precision. The models were applied to Uganda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment 2016/2017 data with auxiliary information from the 2016 Lot Quality Assurance Sampling survey and antenatal care data from district health information system datasets for unit-level and area-level models, respectively.

Results

Estimates from the model-based and the direct survey methods were similar. However, direct survey estimates were unstable compared with the model-based estimates. Area-level model estimates were more stable than unit-level model estimates. The correlation between unit-level and direct survey estimates was (β1 = 0.66, r2 = 0.862), and correlation between area-level model and direct survey estimates was (β1 = 0.44, r2 = 0.698). The error associated with the estimates decreased by 37.5% and 33.1% for the unit-level and area-level models, respectively, compared to the direct survey estimates.

Conclusions

Although the unit-level model estimates were less precise than the area-level model estimates, they were highly correlated with the direct survey estimates and had less standard error associated with estimates than the area-level model. Unit-level models provide more accurate and reliable data to support local decision-making when unit-level auxiliary information is available.

SUBMITTER: Ouma J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8345831 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The prevalence of extreme obesity continues to increase among adults in the US, yet there is an absence of subnational estimates and geographic description of extreme obesity. This shortcoming prevents a thorough understanding of the geographic distribution of extreme obesity, which in turn limits the ability of public health agencies and policy makers to target areas with a known higher prevalence. Objectives:To use small-area estimation to create county-level estimates of extreme obesity in the US and apply spatial methods to identify clusters of high and low prevalence. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using multilevel regression and poststratification with data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the US Census Bureau to create prevalence estimates of county-level extreme obesity (body mass index ?40 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]). Data were included on adults (aged ?18 years) living in the contiguous US. Analysis was performed from June 4 to December 28, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Multilevel logistic regression models estimated the probability of extreme obesity based on individual-level and area-level characteristics. Census counts were multiplied by these probabilities and summed by county to create county-level prevalence estimates. Moran index values were calculated to assess spatial autocorrelation and identify spatial clusters of hot and cold spots. Estimates of moderate obesity were obtained for comparison. Results:Overall, the weighted prevalence of extreme obesity was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.9%-4.1%) and the prevalence of moderate obesity was 23.7% (95% CI, 23.4%-23.9%). County-level prevalence of extreme obesity ranged from 1.3% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.3%) to 15.7% (95% CI, 15.3%-16.0%). The Pearson correlation coefficient comparing model-predicted estimates with direct estimates was 0.81 (P?<?.001). The Moran index I score was 0.35 (P?<?.001), indicating spatial clustering. Significant clusters of high and low prevalence were identified. Hot spots indicating clustering of high prevalence of extreme obesity in several regions, including the Mississippi Delta region and the Southeast, were identified, as well as clusters of low prevalence in the Rocky Mountain region and the Northeast. Conclusions and Relevance:Substantial geographic variation was identified in the prevalence of extreme obesity; there was considerable county-level variation even in states generally known as having high or low prevalence of obesity. The results suggest that extreme obesity prevalence demonstrates spatial dependence and clustering and may support the need for substate analysis and benefit of disaggregation of obesity by group. Findings from this study can inform local and national policies seeking to identify populations most at risk from very high body mass index.

Project description:BackgroundThe goal of this study was to re-estimate rates of bilateral hearing loss Nationally, and create new estimates of hearing loss prevalence at the U.S. State and County levels.MethodsWe developed small area estimation models of mild, and moderate or worse bilateral hearing loss in the U.S. using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2001-2012, 2015-2018), the American Community Survey (2019), Census County Business Patterns (2019); Social Security Administration Data (2019); Medicare Fee-for-Service and Advantage claims data (2019); the Area Health Resources File (2019), and other sources. We defined hearing loss as mild (>25 dB through 40 dB), moderate or worse (>40 dB), or any (>25 dB) in the better hearing ear based on a 4-frequency pure-tone-average threshold, and created estimates by age group (0-4, 5-17, 18-34, 35-64, 65-74, 75+), gender, race and ethnicity, state, and county.FindingsWe estimated that 37.9 million (95% Uncertainty Interval [U.I.] 36.6-39.1) Americans experienced any bilateral hearing loss; 24.9 million (95% U.I. 23.6-26.0) with mild and 13.0 million (95% U.I. 12.1-13.9) with moderate or worse. The prevalence rate of any hearing loss was 11.6% (95% U.I. 11.2%-12.0%). Hearing loss increased with age. Men were more likely to have hearing loss than women after age 35, and non-Hispanic Whites had higher rates of hearing loss than other races and ethnicities. Higher hearing loss prevalence was associated with smaller population size. West Virginia, Alaska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Arkansas had the highest standardised rate of bilateral hearing loss, and Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut had the lowest.InterpretationBilateral Hearing loss varies by State and County, with variation associated with population age, race and ethnicity, and population size. Geographic estimates can be used to raise local awareness of hearing loss as a problem, to prioritize areas for hearing loss prevention, identification, and treatment, and to guide future research on the hearing loss risk factors that contribute to these differences.FundingCDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Population Health.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough geographically specific data can help target HIV prevention and treatment strategies, Nigeria relies on national- and state-level estimates for policymaking and intervention planning. We calculated sub-state estimates along the HIV continuum of care in Nigeria.DesignUsing data from the Nigeria HIV/AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (NAIIS) (July-December 2018), we conducted a geospatial analysis estimating three key programmatic indicators: prevalence of HIV infection among adults (aged 15-64 years); antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage among adults living with HIV; and viral load suppression (VLS) rate among adults living with HIV.MethodsWe used an ensemble modeling method called stacked generalization to analyze available covariates and a geostatistical model to incorporate the output from stacking as well as spatial autocorrelation in the modeled outcomes. Separate models were fitted for each indicator. Finally, we produced raster estimates of each indicator on an approximately 5×5-km grid and estimates at the sub-state/local government area (LGA) and state level.ResultsEstimates for all three indicators varied both within and between states. While state-level HIV prevalence ranged from 0.3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 0.3%-0.5%]) to 4.3% (95% UI: 3.7%-4.9%), LGA prevalence ranged from 0.2% (95% UI: 0.1%-0.5%) to 8.5% (95% UI: 5.8%-12.2%). Although the range in ART coverage did not substantially differ at state level (25.6%-76.9%) and LGA level (21.9%-81.9%), the mean absolute difference in ART coverage between LGAs within states was 16.7 percentage points (range, 3.5-38.5 percentage points). States with large differences in ART coverage between LGAs also showed large differences in VLS-regardless of level of effective treatment coverage-indicating that state-level geographic targeting may be insufficient to address coverage gaps.ConclusionGeospatial analysis across the HIV continuum of care can effectively highlight sub-state variation and identify areas that require further attention in order to achieve epidemic control. By generating local estimates, governments, donors, and other implementing partners will be better positioned to conduct targeted interventions and prioritize resource distribution.