Application of space-time disease clustering by administrative databases in Italy: Adverse Reproductive Outcomes (AROs) and residential exposure

Population Health Metrics

Emilia Prospero⁴  Sara Giuliani¹  Fabio Filippetti²  Francesco Di Stanislao⁴  Marcello M. D’Errico⁴  Massimo Agostini³  Pamela Barbadoro⁴ 

[1] School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy;Regional Epidemiology Network, Ancona, Italy;Local Health Authority, ASUR Area Vasta 1, Fano, Italy;Department of Biomedical Science and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Tronto 10/a, Ancona 60125, AN, Italy

关键词: Italy;    Small area;    Pregnancy outcome;    Health information systems;    Environmental exposure;    Cluster analysis;   

Others  :  1235152
DOI  :  10.1186/s12963-015-0070-0

 received in 2014-09-05, accepted in 2015-12-10,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aims of this study were to estimate the existence of clusters of AROs in the municipalities of the Marches Region (Central Italy) after complaints from residents living near an abandoned landfill site.

Methods

Cases of AROs (i.e., congenital malformation, chromosomal abnormalities, and low birth weight) were retrieved from hospital discharge data. SaTScan and GeoDa were used to check for the presence of clusters at a regional and a small area level. Moreover, at a small area/neighborhood level, smoothed rates were calculated, and a case–control approach was used to assess the residence in proximity to the abandoned landfill as an independent risk factor for AROs.

Results

AROs were associated with the price per square meter of the accommodations in the area of residence (OR 2.53, 95 % CI 2.06-3.10). On the other hand, residence within one kilometer of the landfill (OR 0.04, 95 % CI 0.01-0.23) and maternal age greater than 35 years (OR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.92-0.99) were protective.

Conclusions

Residency in proximity to the abandoned landfill was not a risk factor for the occurrence of AROs. The results show that basic information, such as the price of accommodations in different neighborhoods, could be of interest in order to target training programs for women living in difficult conditions and highlights the potential role of the building environment in perinatal health. However, we note that aside from the data provided by Geographic Information Systems in public health, collection of the patient’s residential address was unreliable for selected conditions. Future efforts should emphasize the patient’s residential address as information important for evaluating the health of individuals instead of being merely administrative data.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Barbadoro et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Whitworth A, Aitken G, Anderson B, Ballas D, Dibben C, Heppenstall A, et al. Evaluations and improvements in small area estimation methodologies. Discussion Paper. National Centre for Research Methods. Sheffield, 2013.
• [2]Riva M, Gauvin L, Barnett TA. Toward the next generation of research into small area effects on health: a synthesis of multilevel investigations published since July 1998. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61(10):853-861.
• [3]Carstairs V. Socio-economic factors at area level and their relationship with health, in Spatial Epidemiology. In: Methods and Applications. Elliott P, Wakefield JC, Best NG, Briggs DJ, editors. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA; 2000: p.51-67.
• [4]Braubach M, Fairburn J. Social inequities in environmental risks associated with housing and residential location—a review of evidence. Eur J Public Health. 2010; 20(1):36-42.
• [5]Brender JD, Maantay JA, Chakraborty J. Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101 Suppl 1:S37-52.
• [6]Pirastu R, Pasetto R, Zona A, Ancona C, Iavarone I, Martuzzi M, et al. The health profile of population living in contaminated sites: SENTIERI approach. J Environ Pub Health. 2013.
• [7]Coorevits P, Sundgren M, Klein GO, Bahr A, Claerhout B, Daniel C et al.. Electronic health records: new opportunities for clinical research. J Intern Med. 2013; 274(6):547-60.
• [8]Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127(8 Pt 2):666-74.
• [9]Shaban-Nejad A, Okhmatovskaia A, Izadi MT, Naderi N, Mondor L, Jauvin C et al.. PHIO: A Knowledge Base for Interpretation and Calculation of Public Health Indicators. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013; 192:1207.
• [10]Guerriero L, Ferdeghini EM, Viola SR, Porro I, Testi A, Bedini R. Telematic integration of health data: a practicable contribution. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011; 36(3):147-60.
• [11]Buckingham WR. The potential and pitfalls of geocoding electronic health records. WMJ. 2012; 111(3):107-11.
• [12]Do D, Finch B, Basurto-Davila R, Bird CE, Escarce J, Lurie N. Does place explain racial health disparities? Quantifying the contribution of residential context to the black/white health gap in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67:1258-1268.
• [13]Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Stone D, Abramsky L, Alberman E, Scott JE. Socioeconomic inequalities in risk of congenital anomaly. Arch Dis Child. 2000; 82:349-352.
• [14]Miranda ML, Messer LC, Kroeger GL. Associations between the quality of the residential built environment and pregnancy outcomes among women in North Carolina. Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 120(3):471-7.
• [15]Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Dadvand P, Grellier J, Martinez D, Vrijheid M. Environmental risk factors of pregnancy outcomes: a summary of recent meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. Environ Health. 2013; 12:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Dadvand P, Wright J, Martinez D, Basagaña X, McEachan RR, Cirach M et al.. Inequality, green spaces, and pregnant women: roles of ethnicity and individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. Environ Int. 2014; 71:101-8.
• [17]Timmermans S, Bonsel GJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Mackenbach JP, Steyerberg EW, Raat H et al.. Individual accumulation of heterogeneous risks explains perinatal inequalities within deprived neighbourhoods. Eur J Epidem. 2011; 26:165-180.
• [18]Vos AA, Posthumus AG, Bonsel GJ, Steegers EA, Denktaş S. Deprived neighborhoods and adverse perinatal outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014; 93(8):727-40.
• [19]Garcia-Subirats I, Perez G, Rodriguez-Sanz M, Ruiz-Muñoz D, Salvador J. Neighborhood inequalities in adverse pregnancy outcomes in an urban setting in Spain: a multilevel approach. J Urban Health. 2012; 89:447-463.
• [20]Prospero E, Barbadoro P, Filippetti F, Appignanesi R, Ciavattini A, Carle F. Occurrence of neural tube defects in pregnancy: an excess of cases in a 2773-km2 area in Central Italy. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008; 71(15):981-3.
• [21]EUROCAT. EUROCAT statistical monitoring protocol 2009. EUROCAT Central Registry, Univeristy of Ulster. 2011. http://www.eurocat-network.eu/accessprevalencedata/interpretationguide/calculationofprevalencerates. Accessed on 23 December 2015
• [22]Cadum E, Costa G, Biggeri A, Martuzzi M. Deprivazione e mortalità: un indice di deprivazione per l’analisi delle disuguaglianze su base geografica. Epidemiol Prev. 1999; 23:175-187.
• [23]Kulldorff M, Nagarwalla N. Spatial disease clusters: Detection and Inference. Stat Med. 1995; 14:799-810.
• [24]Kulldorff M. A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods. 1997; 26:1481-1496.
• [25]Naus JI. Approximations for Distributions of Scan Statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1982; 77(377):177-183.
• [26]Kulldorff M, Athas W, Feuer E, Miller BA, Key CR. Evaluating cluster alarms: A space-time scan statistic and brain cancer in Los Alamos. Am J Public Health. 1998; 88:1377-1380.
• [27]Kulldorff M, Heffernan R, Hartman J, Assunção R, Mostashari F. A space-time permutation scan statistic for disease outbreak detection. PLoS Med. 2005; 2: Article ID e59
• [28]Tango T. A spatial scan statistic scanning only the regions with elevated risk. Advances in Disease Surveillance. 2007; 4:117.
• [29]Anselin L. Local indicators of spatial association–LISA. Geogr Anal. 1995; 27:93-115.
• [30]Agenzia del Territorio. [Italian Revenue Agency. Official Italian Housing price statistics. http://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/wps/content/nsilib/nsi/documentazione/omi/banche+dati/quotazioni+immobiliari. Accessed on 23 December 2015
• [31]Croen LA, Shaw GM, Sanbonmatsu L, Selvin S, Buffler PA. Maternal residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and risk for selected congenital malformations. Epidemiology. 1997; 8:347-54.
• [32]Marshall EG, Gensburg LJ, Deres DA, Geary NS, Cayo MR. Maternal residential exposure to hazardous wastes and risk of central nervous sys-tem and musculoskeletal birth defects. Arch Environ Health. 1997; 52:416-425.
• [33]Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, Fazarinc I et al.. Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near hazardous waste landfill sites. Lancet. 2002; 359:320-322.
• [34]Diez Roux AV. Neighborhoods and health: where are we and where do we go from here? Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2007; 55:13-21.
• [35]Renalds A, Smith TH, Hale PJ. A systematic review of built environment and health. Fam Community Health. 2010; 33:68-78.
• [36]Gilligan C, Sanson-Fisher R, Eades C, D’Este C, Kay-lambkin F, Scheman S. Identifying pregnant women at risk of poor birth outcomes. J Obstet Gyn. 2009; 29:181-187.
• [37]Räisänen S, Gissler M, Sankilampi U, Saari J, Kramer MR, Heinonen S. Contribution of socioeconomic status to the risk of small for gestational age infants--a population-based study of 1,390,165 singleton live births in Finland. Int J Equity Health. 2013; 12:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Finlayson K, Downe S. Why do women not use antenatal services in low-and middle-income countries? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. PLoS Med. 2013; 10:e1001373.
• [39]Denny C, Floyd RL, Green PP, Hayes DK. Racial and ethnic disparities in preconception risk factors and preconception care. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012; 21:720-729.
• [40]Larrañaga I, Santa-Marina L, Begiristain H, Machón M, Vrijheid M, Casas M et al.. Socio-Economic Inequalities in Health, Habits and Self-Care During Pregnancy in Spain. Matern Child Health J. 2012; 17:1315-1324.
• [41]Gavin AR, Nurius P, Logan-Greene P. Mediators of adverse birth outcomes among socially disadvantaged woman. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012; 21:634-642.
• [42]Dwyer-Lindgren L, Gakidou E, Flaxman A, Wang H. Error and bias in under-5 mortality estimates derived from birth histories with small sample sizes. Popul Health Metr. 2013; 11(1):13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Lechat MF, Dolk H. Registries of congenital anomalies: EUROCAT. Environ Health Perspect. 1993; 101 Suppl 2:153-157.
• [44]Slama R, Ballester F, Casas M, Cordier S, Eggesbø M, Iniguez C et al.. Epidemiologic tools to study the influence of environmental factors on fecundity and pregnancy-related outcomes. Epidemiol Rev. 2014; 36(1):148-64.
• [45]Wang Y, Cross PK, Druschel CM. Hospital discharge data: can it serve as the sole source of case ascertainment for population-based birth defects surveillance programs? J Publ Health Manag Pract. 2010; 16(3):245-51.
• [46]Italian National Institute of Health (ISS). Integration of different health information systems for the analysis of frequencies of congenital malformation. (http://www.iss.it/binary/stat/cont/LavoriISS_Psn2014_2016.pdf). Accessed on 23 December 2015.
• [47]Goodman M, Lakind JS, Fagliano JA, Lash TL, Wiemels JL, Winn DM et al.. Cancer cluster investigations: review of the past and proposals for the future. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(2):1479-99.