Cargando…

A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research

BACKGROUND: To explain the possible effects of exposure to weather conditions on population health outcomes, weather data need to be calculated at a level in space and time that is appropriate for the health data. There are various ways of estimating exposure values from raw data collected at weathe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hanigan, Ivan, Hall, Gillian, Dear, Keith BG
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592542/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16968554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-5-38
_version_ 1782130413419888640
author Hanigan, Ivan
Hall, Gillian
Dear, Keith BG
author_facet Hanigan, Ivan
Hall, Gillian
Dear, Keith BG
author_sort Hanigan, Ivan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To explain the possible effects of exposure to weather conditions on population health outcomes, weather data need to be calculated at a level in space and time that is appropriate for the health data. There are various ways of estimating exposure values from raw data collected at weather stations but the rationale for using one technique rather than another; the significance of the difference in the values obtained; and the effect these have on a research question are factors often not explicitly considered. In this study we compare different techniques for allocating weather data observations to small geographical areas and different options for weighting averages of these observations when calculating estimates of daily precipitation and temperature for Australian Postal Areas. Options that weight observations based on distance from population centroids and population size are more computationally intensive but give estimates that conceptually are more closely related to the experience of the population. RESULTS: Options based on values derived from sites internal to postal areas, or from nearest neighbour sites – that is, using proximity polygons around weather stations intersected with postal areas – tended to include fewer stations' observations in their estimates, and missing values were common. Options based on observations from stations within 50 kilometres radius of centroids and weighting of data by distance from centroids gave more complete estimates. Using the geographic centroid of the postal area gave estimates that differed slightly from the population weighted centroids and the population weighted average of sub-unit estimates. CONCLUSION: To calculate daily weather exposure values for analysis of health outcome data for small areas, the use of data from weather stations internal to the area only, or from neighbouring weather stations (allocated by the use of proximity polygons), is too limited. The most appropriate method conceptually is the use of weather data from sites within 50 kilometres radius of the area weighted to population centres, but a simpler acceptable option is to weight to the geographic centroid.
format Text
id pubmed-1592542
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-15925422006-10-10 A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research Hanigan, Ivan Hall, Gillian Dear, Keith BG Int J Health Geogr Methodology BACKGROUND: To explain the possible effects of exposure to weather conditions on population health outcomes, weather data need to be calculated at a level in space and time that is appropriate for the health data. There are various ways of estimating exposure values from raw data collected at weather stations but the rationale for using one technique rather than another; the significance of the difference in the values obtained; and the effect these have on a research question are factors often not explicitly considered. In this study we compare different techniques for allocating weather data observations to small geographical areas and different options for weighting averages of these observations when calculating estimates of daily precipitation and temperature for Australian Postal Areas. Options that weight observations based on distance from population centroids and population size are more computationally intensive but give estimates that conceptually are more closely related to the experience of the population. RESULTS: Options based on values derived from sites internal to postal areas, or from nearest neighbour sites – that is, using proximity polygons around weather stations intersected with postal areas – tended to include fewer stations' observations in their estimates, and missing values were common. Options based on observations from stations within 50 kilometres radius of centroids and weighting of data by distance from centroids gave more complete estimates. Using the geographic centroid of the postal area gave estimates that differed slightly from the population weighted centroids and the population weighted average of sub-unit estimates. CONCLUSION: To calculate daily weather exposure values for analysis of health outcome data for small areas, the use of data from weather stations internal to the area only, or from neighbouring weather stations (allocated by the use of proximity polygons), is too limited. The most appropriate method conceptually is the use of weather data from sites within 50 kilometres radius of the area weighted to population centres, but a simpler acceptable option is to weight to the geographic centroid. BioMed Central 2006-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC1592542/ /pubmed/16968554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-5-38 Text en Copyright © 2006 Hanigan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology
Hanigan, Ivan
Hall, Gillian
Dear, Keith BG
A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
title A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
title_full A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
title_fullStr A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
title_short A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
title_sort comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592542/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16968554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-5-38
work_keys_str_mv AT haniganivan acomparisonofmethodsforcalculatingpopulationexposureestimatesofdailyweatherforhealthresearch
AT hallgillian acomparisonofmethodsforcalculatingpopulationexposureestimatesofdailyweatherforhealthresearch
AT dearkeithbg acomparisonofmethodsforcalculatingpopulationexposureestimatesofdailyweatherforhealthresearch
AT haniganivan comparisonofmethodsforcalculatingpopulationexposureestimatesofdailyweatherforhealthresearch
AT hallgillian comparisonofmethodsforcalculatingpopulationexposureestimatesofdailyweatherforhealthresearch
AT dearkeithbg comparisonofmethodsforcalculatingpopulationexposureestimatesofdailyweatherforhealthresearch