4.6 Article

Fine resolution mapping of population age-structures for health and development applications

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0073

关键词

demography; geo-statistics; mapping

资金

  1. Commonwealth fellowship [KECS-2012-601]
  2. NIH/NIAID [U19AI089674]
  3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP110642749446, 1032350]
  4. RAPIDD programme of the Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security
  5. Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [U19AI089674] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The age-group composition of populations varies considerably across the world, and obtaining accurate, spatially detailed estimates of numbers of children under 5 years is important in designing vaccination strategies, educational planning or maternal healthcare delivery. Traditionally, such estimates are derived from population censuses, but these can often be unreliable, outdated and of coarse resolution for resource-poor settings. Focusing on Nigeria, we use nationally representative household surveys and their cluster locations to predict the proportion of the under-five population in 1 x 1 km using a Bayesian hierarchical spatio-temporal model. Results showed that land cover, travel time to major settlements, night-time lights and vegetation index were good predictors and that accounting for fine-scale variation, rather than assuming a uniform proportion of under 5 year olds can result in significant differences in health metrics. The largest gaps in estimated bednet and vaccination coverage were in Kano, Katsina and Jigawa. Geolocated household surveys are a valuable resource for providing detailed, contemporary and regularly updated population age-structure data in the absence of recent census data. By combining these with covariate layers, age-structure maps of unprecedented detail can be produced to guide the targeting of interventions in resource-poor settings.

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