The study of spatial autocorrelation for infectious disease epidemiology decision-making: a systematized literature review

C. Mergenthaler, M. Gurp, E. Rood, M. Bakker
{"title":"The study of spatial autocorrelation for infectious disease epidemiology decision-making: a systematized literature review","authors":"C. Mergenthaler, M. Gurp, E. Rood, M. Bakker","doi":"10.1079/cabireviews202217018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In recent years, the global spread of communicable diseases such as Ebola and COVID-19 has stressed the need for clear, geographically targeted, and actionable public health recommendations at appropriate spatial scales. Country-level stakeholders are increasingly utilizing spatial data and spatial decision support systems to optimize resource allocation, and researchers have access to a growing library of spatial data, tools, and software. Application of spatial methods, however, varies widely between researchers, resulting in often unstandardized results, which may be difficult to compare across geographical settings. This literature review aims to compare epidemiological studies, which applies methods including spatial autocorrelation to describe, explain, or predict spatial patterns underlying infectious disease health outcomes, and to describe whether those studies provide clear recommendations. The results of our analysis show an increasing trend in the number of publications applying spatial analysis in epidemiological research per year, with COVID-19, tuberculosis and dengue predominantly studied (43% of n = 98 total articles), and a majority of publication coming from Asia (62%). Spatial autocorrelation was quantified in the majority of studies (72%), and 57 (58%) of articles include some form of statistical modeling of which 11 (19%) accounted for spatial autocorrelation in the model. Most studies (68%) provided some level of recommendation regarding how results should be interpreted for future research or policy development, however often using vague, cautious terms. We recommend the development of standards for spatial epidemiological methods and reporting, and for spatial epidemiological studies to more clearly propose how their findings support or challenge current public health practice.","PeriodicalId":399225,"journal":{"name":"CABI Reviews","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CABI Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews202217018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, the global spread of communicable diseases such as Ebola and COVID-19 has stressed the need for clear, geographically targeted, and actionable public health recommendations at appropriate spatial scales. Country-level stakeholders are increasingly utilizing spatial data and spatial decision support systems to optimize resource allocation, and researchers have access to a growing library of spatial data, tools, and software. Application of spatial methods, however, varies widely between researchers, resulting in often unstandardized results, which may be difficult to compare across geographical settings. This literature review aims to compare epidemiological studies, which applies methods including spatial autocorrelation to describe, explain, or predict spatial patterns underlying infectious disease health outcomes, and to describe whether those studies provide clear recommendations. The results of our analysis show an increasing trend in the number of publications applying spatial analysis in epidemiological research per year, with COVID-19, tuberculosis and dengue predominantly studied (43% of n = 98 total articles), and a majority of publication coming from Asia (62%). Spatial autocorrelation was quantified in the majority of studies (72%), and 57 (58%) of articles include some form of statistical modeling of which 11 (19%) accounted for spatial autocorrelation in the model. Most studies (68%) provided some level of recommendation regarding how results should be interpreted for future research or policy development, however often using vague, cautious terms. We recommend the development of standards for spatial epidemiological methods and reporting, and for spatial epidemiological studies to more clearly propose how their findings support or challenge current public health practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
传染病流行病学决策的空间自相关研究:系统文献综述
近年来,埃博拉和COVID-19等传染病在全球蔓延,强调需要在适当的空间尺度上提出明确、有地理针对性和可操作的公共卫生建议。国家层面的利益相关者越来越多地利用空间数据和空间决策支持系统来优化资源配置,研究人员可以访问越来越多的空间数据、工具和软件库。然而,空间方法的应用在不同的研究人员之间差异很大,导致往往不标准化的结果,这可能难以在不同的地理环境中进行比较。本文献综述旨在比较流行病学研究,这些研究应用包括空间自相关在内的方法来描述、解释或预测传染病健康结果的空间模式,并描述这些研究是否提供了明确的建议。我们的分析结果显示,每年在流行病学研究中应用空间分析的出版物数量呈增加趋势,主要研究COVID-19、结核病和登革热(占n = 98篇文章总数的43%),大多数出版物来自亚洲(62%)。大多数研究(72%)对空间自相关进行了量化,57篇(58%)的文章包括某种形式的统计建模,其中11篇(19%)的文章在模型中考虑了空间自相关。大多数研究(68%)就如何解释结果以供未来研究或政策制定提供了一定程度的建议,但通常使用模糊、谨慎的术语。我们建议为空间流行病学方法和报告制定标准,并为空间流行病学研究制定标准,以便更清楚地提出其研究结果如何支持或挑战当前的公共卫生做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using CRISPR-Cas9 to create knockout mutants in insects Deep soil organic carbon: A review Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria mitigate drought and salinity stresses, and improve the physiological and agronomic performances in crops: A systematic review Potentials of Cannabis as versatile additive in consumer, industrial and medicinal products and green synthesis of nanoparticles: A systematic review Local food systems as a resilient strategy to ensure sustainable food security in crisis: Lessons from COVID-19 pandemic and perspectives for the post-pandemic world
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1