IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0130027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Rank Precision of Population Health Measures for Small Areas with Longitudinal and Joint Outcome Models

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica K Athens
  • Patrick L Remington
  • Ronald E Gangnon

Abstract

Objectives: The University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute has published the County Health Rankings since 2010. These rankings use population-based data to highlight health outcomes and the multiple determinants of these outcomes and to encourage in-depth health assessment for all United States counties. A significant methodological limitation, however, is the uncertainty of rank estimates, particularly for small counties. To address this challenge, we explore the use of longitudinal and pooled outcome data in hierarchical Bayesian models to generate county ranks with greater precision. Methods: In our models we used pooled outcome data for three measure groups: (1) Poor physical and poor mental health days; (2) percent of births with low birth weight and fair or poor health prevalence; and (3) age-specific mortality rates for nine age groups. We used the fixed and random effects components of these models to generate posterior samples of rates for each measure. We also used time-series data in longitudinal random effects models for age-specific mortality. Based on the posterior samples from these models, we estimate ranks and rank quartiles for each measure, as well as the probability of a county ranking in its assigned quartile. Rank quartile probabilities for univariate, joint outcome, and/or longitudinal models were compared to assess improvements in rank precision. Results: The joint outcome model for poor physical and poor mental health days resulted in improved rank precision, as did the longitudinal model for age-specific mortality rates. Rank precision for low birth weight births and fair/poor health prevalence based on the univariate and joint outcome models were equivalent. Conclusion: Incorporating longitudinal or pooled outcome data may improve rank certainty, depending on characteristics of the measures selected. For measures with different determinants, joint modeling neither improved nor degraded rank precision. This approach suggests a simple way to use existing information to improve the precision of small-area measures of population health.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica K Athens & Patrick L Remington & Ronald E Gangnon, 2015. "Improving the Rank Precision of Population Health Measures for Small Areas with Longitudinal and Joint Outcome Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0130027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harvey Goldstein & David J. Spiegelhalter, 1996. "League Tables and Their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 159(3), pages 385-409, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Hewson & Keming Yu, 2008. "Quantile regression for binary performance indicators," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 401-418, September.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2014. "How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 175-180.
    3. Arpino, Bruno & Varriale, Roberta, 2009. "Assessing the quality of institutions’ rankings obtained through multilevel linear regression models," MPRA Paper 19873, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    5. Magne Mogstad & Joseph P. Romano & Azeem Shaikh & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Inference for Ranks with Applications to Mobility across Neighborhoods and Academic Achievement across Countries," NBER Working Papers 26883, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    7. repec:lan:wpaper:991 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Nils Gutacker & Andrew Street, 2015. "Multidimensional performance assessment using dominance criteria," Working Papers 115cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Nils Gutacker & Andrew Street, 2018. "Multidimensional performance assessment of public sector organisations using dominance criteria," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 13-27, February.
    10. Sulis, Isabella & Giambona, Francesca & Porcu, Mariano, 2020. "Adjusted indicators of quality and equity for monitoring the education systems over time. Insights on EU15 countries from PISA surveys," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    11. Pia Kjær Kristensen & Raquel Perez-Vicente & George Leckie & Søren Paaske Johnsen & Juan Merlo, 2020. "Disentangling the contribution of hospitals and municipalities for understanding patient level differences in one-year mortality risk after hip-fracture: A cross-classified multilevel analysis in Swed," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, June.
    12. Paolo Berta & Salvatore Ingrassia & Antonio Punzo & Giorgio Vittadini, 2016. "Multilevel cluster-weighted models for the evaluation of hospitals," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 74(3), pages 275-292, December.
    13. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    14. Frank Eijkenaar & René C. J. A. van Vliet, 2014. "Performance Profiling in Primary Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 192-205, February.
    15. John Robinson & Scott Zeger & Christopher Forrest, 2004. "A Hierarchical Multivariate Two-Part Model for Profiling Providers' Effects on Healthcare Charges," Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1052, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    16. Martini, Gianmaria & Berta, Paolo & Mullahy, John & Vittadini, Giorgio, 2014. "The effectiveness–efficiency trade-off in health care: The case of hospitals in Lombardy, Italy," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 217-231.
    17. Anna Cuxart & Nicholas T. Longford, 1997. "Monitoring the university admissions process in Spain," Economics Working Papers 257, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Dec 1997.
    18. Adnett, Nick & Bougheas, Spiros & Davies, Peter, 2002. "Market-based reforms of public schooling: some unpleasant dynamics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 323-330, August.
    19. Francesca Giambona & Mariano Porcu & Isabella Sulis, 2017. "Students Mobility: Assessing the Determinants of Attractiveness Across Competing Territorial Areas," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 1105-1132, September.
    20. Li Mingliang & Tobias Justin, 2005. "Bayesian Modeling of School Effects Using Hierarchical Models with Smoothing Priors," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 1-33, September.
    21. Pier Ferrari & Laura Pagani & Carlo Fiorio, 2011. "A Two-Step Approach to Analyze Satisfaction Data," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 545-554, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.