4.6 Article

Comparison of a spatial perspective with the multilevel analytical approach in neighborhood studies: The case of mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use in Malmo, Sweden, 2001

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 162, 期 2, 页码 171-182

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi175

关键词

epidemiologic methods; logistic models; mental disorders; social environment; spatial analysis; substance-related disorders

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most studies of neighborhood effects on health have used the multilevel approach. However, since this methodology does not incorporate any notion of space, it may not provide optimal epidemiologic information when modeling variations or when investigating associations between contextual factors and health. Investigating mental disorders due to psychoactive substance use among all 65,830 individuals aged 40-59 years in 2001 in Malmo, Sweden, geolocated at their place of residence, the authors compared a spatial analytical perspective, which builds notions of space into hypotheses and methods, with the multilevel approach. Geoadditive models provided precise cartographic information on spatial variations in prevalence independent of administrative boundaries. The multilevel model showed significant neighborhood variations in the prevalence of substance-related disorders. However, hierarchical geostatistical models provided information on not only the magnitude but also the scale of neighborhood variations, indicating a significant correlation between neighborhoods in close proximity to each other. The prevalence of disorders increased with neighborhood deprivation. Far stronger associations were observed when using indicators measured in spatially adaptive areas, centered on residences of individuals, smaller in size than administrative neighborhoods. In neighborhood studies, building notions of space into analytical procedures may yield more comprehensive information than heretofore has been gathered on the spatial distribution of outcomes.

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