County-Level Geographic Disparities in Disabilities Among US Adults, 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Local data are increasingly needed for public health practice. County-level data on disabilities can be a valuable complement to existing estimates of disabilities. The objective of this study was to describe the county-level prevalence of disabilities among US adults and identify geographic clusters of counties with a higher or lower prevalence of disabilities. METHODS: We applied a multilevel logistic regression and poststratification approach to geocoded 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, Census 2018 county-level population estimates, and American Community Survey 2014-2018 poverty estimates to generate county-level estimates for 6 functional disabilities and any disability type. We used cluster-outlier spatial statistical methods to identify clustered counties. RESULTS: Among 3,142 counties, median estimated prevalence was 29.5% for any disability and differed by type: hearing (8.0%), vision (4.9%), cognition (11.5%), mobility (14.9%), self-care (3.7%), and independent living (7.2%). The spatial autocorrelation statistic, Moran's I, was 0.70 for any disability and 0.60 or greater for all 6 types of disability, indicating that disabilities were highly clustered at the county level. We observed similar spatial cluster patterns in all disability types except hearing disability. CONCLUSION: The results suggest substantial differences in disability prevalence across US counties. These data, heretofore unavailable from a health survey, may help with planning programs at the county level to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities.

The Use of Small Area Estimates in Place-Based Health Research.

Interest in the impact of the built environment on health behaviors, outcomes, and disparities is increasing, and the growing development of statistical modeling techniques has allowed researchers to better investigate these relationships. However, without enough data that are identifiable at smaller geographic levels (e.g., census tract), place-based health researchers are unable to reliably estimate the prevalence of a health outcome at these more granular and potentially more salient neighborhood levels.When reliable direct survey estimates cannot be produced because of small samples or a lack of samples, estimates based on small area estimation techniques are often used. As place-based health research and the production and secondary use of small area estimates increase, it is critical that researchers understand both the underlying methods used to create these estimates and their limitations. Without this foundation, researchers may fit inappropriate models, or interpret findings inaccurately.As a demonstrative example, we focus this discussion on the small area health indicator estimates recently produced through the 500 Cities Project by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the CDC Foundation.

Measuring Alcohol Outlet Density: An Overview of Strategies for Public Health Practitioners.

CONTEXT: Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 88 000 deaths in the United States annually and cost the United States $249 billion in 2010. There is strong scientific evidence that regulating alcohol outlet density is an effective intervention for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms, but there is no standard method for measuring this exposure. PROGRAM: We overview the strategies available for measuring outlet density, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and provide examples of how they can be applied in practice. IMPLEMENTATION: The 3 main approaches for measuring density are container-based (eg, number of outlets in a county), distance-based (eg, average distance between a college and outlets), and spatial access-based (eg, weighted distance between town center and outlets). EVALUATION: While container-based measures are the simplest to calculate and most intuitive, distance-based or spatial access-based measures are unconstrained by geopolitical boundaries and allow for assessment of clustering (an amplifier of certain alcohol-related harms). Spatial access-based measures can also be adjusted for population size/demographics but are the most resource-intensive to produce. DISCUSSION: Alcohol outlet density varies widely across and between locations and over time, which is why it is important to measure it. Routine public health surveillance of alcohol outlet density is important to identify problem areas and detect emerging ones. Distance- or spatial access-based measures of alcohol outlet density are more resource-intensive than container-based measures but provide a much more accurate assessment of exposure to alcohol outlets and can be used to assess clustering, which is particularly important when assessing the relationship between density and alcohol-related harms, such as violent crime.

Multilevel model to estimate county-level untreated dental caries among US children aged 6-9years using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Because conducting population-based oral health screening is resource intensive, oral health data at small-area levels (e.g., county-level) are not commonly available. We applied the multilevel logistic regression and poststratification method to estimate county-level prevalence of untreated dental caries among children aged 6-9years in the United States using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2010 linked with various area-level data at census tract, county and state levels. We validated model-based national estimates against direct estimates from NHANES. We also compared model-based estimates with direct estimates from select State Oral Health Surveys (SOHS) at state and county levels. The model with individual-level covariates only and the model with individual-, census tract- and county-level covariates explained 7.2% and 96.3% respectively of overall county-level variation in untreated caries. Model-based county-level prevalence estimates ranged from 4.9% to 65.2% with median of 22.1%. The model-based national estimate (19.9%) matched the NHANES direct estimate (19.8%). We found significantly positive correlations between model-based estimates for 8-year-olds and direct estimates from the third-grade State Oral Health Surveys (SOHS) at state level for 34 states (Pearson coefficient: 0.54, P=0.001) and SOHS estimates at county level for 53 New York counties (Pearson coefficient: 0.38, P=0.006). This methodology could be a useful tool to characterize county-level disparities in untreated dental caries among children aged 6-9years and complement oral health surveillance to inform public health programs especially when local-level data are not available although the lack of external validation due to data unavailability should be acknowledged.

Quantifying spatial accessibility in public health practice and research: an application to on-premise alcohol outlets, United States, 2013.

OBJECTIVE: To assess spatial accessibility measures to on-premise alcohol outlets at census block, census tract, county, and state levels for the United States. METHODS: Using network analysis in a geographic information system, we computed distance-based measures (Euclidean distance, driving distance, and driving time) to on-premise alcohol outlets for the entire U.S. at the census block level. We then calculated spatial access-based measures, specifically a population-weighted spatial accessibility index and population-weighted distances (Euclidean distance, driving distance, and driving time) to alcohol outlets at the census tract, county, and state levels. A multilevel model-based sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the associations between different on-premise alcohol outlet accessibility measures and excessive drinking outcomes. RESULTS: The national average population-weighted driving time to the nearest 7 on-premise alcohol outlets was 5.89 min, and the average population-weighted driving distance was 2.63 miles. At the state level, population-weighted driving times ranged from 1.67 min (DC) to 15.29 min (Arizona). Population-weighted driving distances ranged from 0.67 miles (DC) to 7.91 miles (Arkansas). At the county level, population-weighted driving times and distances exhibited significant geographic variations, and averages for both measures increased by the degree of county rurality. The population-weighted spatial accessibility indexes were highly correlated to respective population-weighted distance measures. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that population weighted accessibility measures were more sensitive to excessive drinking outcomes than were population weighted distance measures. CONCLUSIONS: These results can be used to assess the relationship between geographic access to on-premise alcohol outlets and health outcomes. This study demonstrates a flexible and robust method that can be applied or modified to quantify spatial accessibility to public resources such as healthy food stores, medical care providers, and parks and greenspaces, as well as, quantify spatial exposure to local adverse environments such as tobacco stores and fast food restaurants.

Using 3 Health Surveys to Compare Multilevel Models for Small Area Estimation for Chronic Diseases and Health Behaviors.

BACKGROUND: We used a multilevel regression and poststratification approach to generate estimates of health-related outcomes using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2013 (BRFSS) data for the 500 US cities. We conducted an empirical study to investigate whether the approach is robust using different health surveys. METHODS: We constructed a multilevel logistic model with individual-level age, sex, and race/ethnicity as predictors (Model I), and sequentially added educational attainment (Model II) and area-level poverty (Model III) for 5 health-related outcomes using the nationwide BRFSS, the Massachusetts BRFSS 2013 (a state subset of nationwide BRFSS), and the Boston BRFSS 2010/2013 (an independent survey), respectively. We applied each model to the Boston population (2010 Census) to predict each outcome in Boston and compared each with corresponding Boston BRFSS direct estimates. RESULTS: Using Model I for the nationwide BRFSS, estimates of diabetes, high blood pressure, physical inactivity, and binge drinking fell within the 95% confidence interval of corresponding Boston BRFSS direct estimates. Adding educational attainment and county-level poverty (Models II and III) further improved their accuracy, particularly for current smoking (the model-based estimate was 15.2% by Model I and 18.1% by Model II). The estimates based on state BRFSS and Boston BRFSS models were similar to those based on the nationwide BRFSS, but area-level poverty did not improve the estimates significantly. CONCLUSION: The estimates of health-related outcomes were similar using different health surveys. Model specification could vary by surveys with different geographic coverage.

Comparison of Methods for Estimating Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Health Behaviors for Small Geographic Areas: Boston Validation Study, 2013.

INTRODUCTION: Local health authorities need small-area estimates for prevalence of chronic diseases and health behaviors for multiple purposes. We generated city-level and census-tract-level prevalence estimates of 27 measures for the 500 largest US cities. METHODS: To validate the methodology, we constructed multilevel logistic regressions to predict 10 selected health indicators among adults aged 18 years or older by using 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data; we applied their predicted probabilities to census population data to generate city-level, neighborhood-level, and zip-code-level estimates for the city of Boston, Massachusetts. RESULTS: By comparing the predicted estimates with their corresponding direct estimates from a locally administered survey (Boston BRFSS 2010 and 2013), we found that our model-based estimates for most of the selected health indicators at the city level were close to the direct estimates from the local survey. We also found strong correlation between the model-based estimates and direct survey estimates at neighborhood and zip code levels for most indicators. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that our model-based estimates are reliable and valid at the city level for certain health outcomes. Local health authorities can use the neighborhood-level estimates if high quality local health survey data are not otherwise available.

Prevalence of Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis at State and County Levels - United States, 2014.

Doctor-diagnosed arthritis is a common chronic condition that affects approximately 52.5 million (22.7%) adults in the United States and is a leading cause of disability (1,2). The prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis has been well documented at the national level (1), but little has been published at the state level and the county level, where interventions are carried out and can have their greatest effect. To estimate the prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis among adults at the state and county levels, CDC analyzed data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which found that, for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC) overall, the age-standardized median prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis was 24% (range = 18.8%-35.5%). The age-standardized model-predicted prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis varied substantially by county, with estimates ranging from 15.8% to 38.6%. The high prevalence of arthritis in all counties, and the high frequency of arthritis-attributable limitations (1) among adults with arthritis, suggests that states and counties might benefit from expanding underused, evidence-based interventions for arthritis that can reduce arthritis symptoms and improve self-management.

Periodontitis prevalence in adults ≥ 65 years of age, in the USA.

The older adult population is growing rapidly in the USA and it is expected that by 2040 the number of adults ≥ 65 years of age will have increased by about 50%. With the growth of this subpopulation, oral health status, and periodontal status in particular, becomes important in the quest to maintain an adequate quality of life. Poor oral health can have a major impact, leading to tooth loss, pain and discomfort, and may prevent older adults from chewing food properly, often leading to poor nutrition. Periodontitis is monitored in the USA at the national level as part of the Healthy People 2020 initiative. In this report, we provide estimates of the overall burden of periodontitis among adults ≥ 65 years of age and after stratification according to sociodemographic factors, modifiable risk factors (such as smoking status), the presence of other systemic conditions (such as diabetes) and access to dental care. We also estimated the burden of periodontitis within this age group at the state and local levels. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009/2010 and 2011/2012 cycles were analyzed. Periodontal measures from both survey cycles were based on a full-mouth periodontal examination. Nineteen per cent of adults in this subpopulation were edentulous. The mean age was 73 years, 7% were current smokers, 8% lived below the 100% Federal Poverty Level and < 40% had seen a dentist in the past year. Almost two-thirds (62.3%) had one or more sites with ≥ 5 mm of clinical attachment loss and almost half had at least one site with probing pocket depth of ≥ 4 mm. We estimated the lowest prevalence of periodontitis in Utah (62.3%) and New Hampshire (62.6%) and the highest in New Mexico, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia each with a prevalence of higher than 70%. Overall, periodontitis is highly prevalent in this subpopulation, with two-thirds of dentate older adults affected at any geographic level. These findings provide an opportunity to determine how the overall health-care management of older adults should consider the improvement of their oral health conditions. Many older adults do not have dental insurance and are also likely to have some chronic conditions, which can adversely affect their oral health.

Validation of multilevel regression and poststratification methodology for small area estimation of health indicators from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system.

Small area estimation is a statistical technique used to produce reliable estimates for smaller geographic areas than those for which the original surveys were designed. Such small area estimates (SAEs) often lack rigorous external validation. In this study, we validated our multilevel regression and poststratification SAEs from 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data using direct estimates from 2011 Missouri County-Level Study and American Community Survey data at both the state and county levels. Coefficients for correlation between model-based SAEs and Missouri County-Level Study direct estimates for 115 counties in Missouri were all significantly positive (0.28 for obesity and no health-care coverage, 0.40 for current smoking, 0.51 for diabetes, and 0.69 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Coefficients for correlation between model-based SAEs and American Community Survey direct estimates of no health-care coverage were 0.85 at the county level (811 counties) and 0.95 at the state level. Unweighted and weighted model-based SAEs were compared with direct estimates; unweighted models performed better. External validation results suggest that multilevel regression and poststratification model-based SAEs using single-year Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data are valid and could be used to characterize geographic variations in health indictors at local levels (such as counties) when high-quality local survey data are not available.