Background Identifying disparities in myocardial infarction (MI) burden and assessing its temporal changes are critical for guiding resource allocation and policies geared towards reducing/eliminating health disparities. Our objectives were to: (a) investigate the spatial distribution and clusters of MI mortality risk in Florida; and (b) assess temporal changes in geographic disparities in MI mortality risks in Florida from 2000 to 2014. Methods This is a retrospective ecologic study with county as the spatial unit of analysis. We obtained data for MI deaths occurring among Florida residents between 2000 and 2014 from the Florida Department of Health, and calculated county-level age-adjusted MI mortality risks and Spatial Empirical Bayesian smoothed MI mortality risks. We used Kulldorff’s circular spatial scan statistics and Tango’s flexible spatial scan statistics to identify spatial clusters. Results There was an overall decline of 48% in MI mortality risks between 2000 and 2014. However, we found substantial, persistent disparities in MI mortality risks, with high-risk clusters occurring primarily in rural northern counties and low-risk clusters occurring exclusively in urban southern counties. MI mortality risks declined in both low- and high-risk clusters, but the latter showed more dramatic decreases during the first nine years of the study period. Consequently, the risk difference between the high- and low-risk clusters was smaller at the end than at the beginning of the study period. However, the rates of decline levelled off during the last six years of the study, and there are signs that the risks may be on an upward trend in parts of North Florida. Moreover, MI mortality risks for high-risk clusters at the end of the study period were on par with or above those for low-risk clusters at the beginning of the study period. Thus, high-risk clusters lagged behind low-risk clusters by at least 1.5 decades. Conclusion Myocardial infarction mortality risks have decreased substantially during the last 15 years, but persistent disparities in MI mortality burden still exist across Florida. Efforts to reduce these disparities will need to target prevention programs to counties in the high-risk clusters.
Background Understanding geographic disparities in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing and outcomes at the local level during the early stages of the pandemic can guide policies, inform allocation of control and prevention resources, and provide valuable baseline data to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for mitigating health, economic and social impacts. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify geographic disparities in COVID-19 testing, incidence, hospitalizations, and deaths during the first five months of the pandemic in Florida. Methods Florida county-level COVID-19 data for the time period March-July 2020 were used to compute various COVID-19 metrics including testing rates, positivity rates, incidence risks, percent of hospitalized cases, hospitalization risks, case-fatality rates, and mortality risks. High or low risk clusters were identified using either Kulldorff’s circular spatial scan statistics or Tango’s flexible spatial scan statistics and their locations were visually displayed using QGIS. Results Visual examination of spatial patterns showed high estimates of all COVID-19 metrics for Southern Florida. Similar to the spatial patterns, high-risk clusters for testing and positivity rates and all COVID-19 outcomes (i.e. hospitalizations and deaths) were concentrated in Southern Florida. The distributions of these metrics in the other parts of Florida were more heterogeneous. For instance, testing rates for parts of Northwest Florida were well below the state median (11,697 tests/100,000 persons) but they were above the state median for North Central Florida. The incidence risks for Northwest Florida were equal to or above the state median incidence risk (878 cases/100,000 persons), but the converse was true for parts of North Central Florida. Consequently, a cluster of high testing rates was identified in North Central Florida, while a cluster of low testing rate and 1–3 clusters of high incidence risks, percent of hospitalized cases, hospitalization risks, and case fatality rates were identified in Northwest Florida. Central Florida had low-rate clusters of testing and positivity rates but it had a high-risk cluster of percent of hospitalized cases. Conclusions Substantial disparities in the spatial distribution of COVID-19 outcomes and testing and positivity rates exist in Florida, with Southern Florida counties generally having higher testing and positivity rates and more severe outcomes (i.e. hospitalizations and deaths) compared to Northern Florida. These findings provide valuable baseline data that is useful for assessing the effectiveness of preventive interventions, such as vaccinations, in various geographic locations in the state. Future studies will need to assess changes in spatial patterns over time at lower geographical scales and determinants of any identified patterns.
Knowledge of geographical disparities in myocardial infarction (MI) is critical for guiding health planning and resource allocation. The objectives of this study were to identify geographic disparities in MI hospitalization risks in Florida and assess temporal changes in these disparities between 2005 and 2014. This study used retrospective data on MI hospitalizations that occurred among Florida residents between 2005 and 2014. We identified spatial clusters of hospitalization risks using Kulldorff’s circular and Tango’s flexible spatial scan statistics. Counties with persistently high or low MI hospitalization risks were identified. There was a 20% decline in hospitalization risks during the study period. However, we found persistent clustering of high risks in the Big Bend region, South Central and southeast Florida, and persistent clustering of low risks primarily in the South. Risks decreased by 7%–21% in high-risk clusters and by 9%–28% in low-risk clusters. The risk decreased in the high-risk cluster in the southeast but increased in the Big Bend area during the last four years of the study. Overall, risks in low-risk clusters were ahead those for high-risk clusters by at least 10 years. Despite MI risk declining over the study period, disparities in MI risks persist. Eliminating/reducing those disparities will require prioritizing high-risk clusters for interventions.
Background
Identifying social determinants of myocardial infarction (
MI
) hospitalizations is crucial for reducing/eliminating health disparities. Therefore, our objectives were to identify sociodemographic determinants of
MI
hospitalization risks and to assess if the impacts of these determinants vary by geographic location in Florida.
Methods and Results
This is a retrospective ecologic study at the county level. We obtained data for principal and secondary
MI
hospitalizations for Florida residents for the 2005–2014 period and calculated age‐ and sex‐adjusted
MI
hospitalization risks. We used a multivariable negative binomial model to identify sociodemographic determinants of
MI
hospitalization risks and a geographically weighted negative binomial model to assess if the strength of associations vary by location. There were 645 935
MI
hospitalizations (median age, 72 years; 58.1%, men; 73.9%, white). Age‐ and sex‐adjusted risks ranged from 18.49 to 69.48 cases/10 000 persons, and they were significantly higher in counties with low education levels (risk ratio [
RR
]=1.033,
P
<0.0001) and high divorce rate (
RR
, 0.995;
P
=0.018). However, they were significantly lower in counties with high proportions of rural (
RR
, 0.996;
P
<0.0001), black (RR, 1.026;
P
=0.032), and uninsured populations (
RR
, 0.983;
P
=0.040). Associations of
MI
hospitalization risks with education level and uninsured rate varied geographically (
P
for non‐stationarity test=0.001 and 0.043, respectively), with strongest associations in southern Florida (
RR
for
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.