4.6 Article

Impact of Differential Privacy and Census Tract Data Source (Decennial Census Versus American Community Survey) for Monitoring Health Inequities

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 265-268

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305989

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor Award [1 R01 HD092580-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared mortality rate estimates in Massachusetts using different denominator sources and found that health inequities at the census tract level may not be significantly affected by differential privacy and uncertainty in the American Community Survey data. The results were consistent across different demographic groups within census tracts.
Objectives. To investigate how census tract (CT) estimates of mortality rates and inequities are affected by (1) differential privacy (DP), whereby the public decennial census (DC) data are injected with statistical noise to protect individual privacy, and (2) uncertainty arising from the small number of different persons surveyed each year in a given CT for the American Community Survey (ACS). Methods. We compared estimates of the 2008-2012 average annual premature mortality rate (death before age 65 years) in Massachusetts using CT data from the 2010 DC, 2010 DC with DP, and 2008-2012 ACS 5-year estimate data. Results. For these 3 denominator sources, the age-standardized premature mortality rates (per 100 000) for the total population respectively equaled 166.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 162.2, 170.6), 166.4 (95% CI = 162.2, 170.6), and 166.3 (95% CI = 162.1, 170.5), and inequities in the range from best to worst quintile for CT racialized economic segregation were from 103.4 to 260.1, 102.9 to 258.7, and 102.8 to 262.4. Similarity of results across CT denominator sources held for analyses stratified by gender and race/ethnicity. Conclusions. Estimates of health inequities at the CT level may not be affected by use of 2020 DP data and uncertainty in the ACS data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据