Next Article in Journal
Correction: Giordano, P.C.; et al. Genetic Epidemiology and Preventive Healthcare in Multiethnic Societies: The Hemoglobinopathies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 6136–6146
Next Article in Special Issue
A Critical Review of an Authentic and Transformative Environmental Justice and Health Community — University Partnership
Previous Article in Journal
Wellbeing Impacts of City Policies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Novel Socioeconomic Measure Using Individual Housing Data in Cardiovascular Outcome Research
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploration of Preterm Birth Rates Using the Public Health Exposome Database and Computational Analysis Methods

1
Department of Public Health, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
2
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
3
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN 37208, USA
4
Department of Animal Science, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
5
Research Center on Health Disparities, Equity, and the Exposome, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA
6
National Institute for Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
7
Department of Political Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11(12), 12346-12366; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212346
Received: 8 October 2014 / Revised: 12 November 2014 / Accepted: 19 November 2014 / Published: 28 November 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Eliminating Health Disparities to Achieve Health Equity)

Abstract

:
Recent advances in informatics technology has made it possible to integrate, manipulate, and analyze variables from a wide range of scientific disciplines allowing for the examination of complex social problems such as health disparities. This study used 589 county-level variables to identify and compare geographical variation of high and low preterm birth rates. Data were collected from a number of publically available sources, bringing together natality outcomes with attributes of the natural, built, social, and policy environments. Singleton early premature county birth rate, in counties with population size over 100,000 persons provided the dependent variable. Graph theoretical techniques were used to identify a wide range of predictor variables from various domains, including black proportion, obesity and diabetes, sexually transmitted infection rates, mother’s age, income, marriage rates, pollution and temperature among others. Dense subgraphs (paracliques) representing groups of highly correlated variables were resolved into latent factors, which were then used to build a regression model explaining prematurity (R-squared = 76.7%). Two lists of counties with large positive and large negative residuals, indicating unusual prematurity rates given their circumstances, may serve as a starting point for ways to intervene and reduce health disparities for preterm births.

1. Introduction

US infant mortality rates (IMRs) are generally higher than European rates and preterm birth is often identified as one of the main explanations for the high US IMR [1]. Preterm birth rates are higher in non-Hispanic black women in the US than non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women (16.8, 10.5 and 11.7 percent respectively in 2011 for births prior to 37 weeks) [2]. In addition, non-Hispanic black IMR continues to be more than twice that of non-Hispanic white [3], despite recent reductions in both populations [4]. The underlying causes of the higher rate of preterm births in non-Hispanic blacks are not fully understood; the Center for Disease Control (CDC) states, “Preventing preterm birth remains a challenge because the causes of preterm births are numerous, complex, and poorly understood” [5].
Black/white racial disparities in preterm birth rates have been found to be associated with a range of social and economic deprivation factors [6] including poverty, disability and low education levels. Preterm birth rates are high even among highly educated black women [7], however, and have remained higher than the white population over generations [8]. Other risk factors which have been associated with black/white preterm birth rate disparities include exposure to fine particulate matter [9], sexually transmitted infections, nutritional status, access to medical care, stress, and intergenerational effects [10].
Geographical variation in black/white, preterm birth disparities may provide insight into possible preventive interventions to reduce disparities between different communities. Some of the variation is explained by known risk factors, but some of the variation might reflect unidentified differences in modifiable risk factors that have implications for reducing rates. Typically investigators aim to validate a preconceived hypothesis, and data collection is limited to a handful of relevant variables. Prompted by progress in measurement of the effect of environmental exposures on health, however, there has been a call to measure more fully the complex relationships between exogenous and endogenous exposures and their effects on personal health across the lifespan [11] leading to population level disparities at a community level. Juarez et al. [12] have structured a longitudinal information system to assess the relationships between health outcomes and social-ecological exposure across the physical, built, social and policy environments (see [13], for a detailed description of the public health exposome conceptual model). The concept of the public health exposome implies measurement of complete exposure pathways ranging from environmental toxins to aggregate-level social-ecological factors on human bio-psycho-social systems, and in its complete form is a daunting task. However, with recent advances in informatics and large and longitudinal, publically available electronic data sets, researchers now have unprecedented access to measures describing the effects of a wide range of environmental and social influences on social problems with complex etiologies such as health disparities. In addition to allowing a more complete measurement of exposures, the public health exposome data repository provides opportunities to use data driven methodologies, allowing the data itself to identify predictors of health outcomes, without the need for preconceived hypotheses. Data driven outcomes can be validated with traditional inferential statistics or used to generate and test new hypotheses.
The aims of this study are to investigate the variation in early preterm birth rates across counties, identify social-ecological and environmental factors which account for this variation, and identify counties with unusually high and low preterm birth rates that can be investigated in greater detail to explain disparate outcomes. Using a county-level dataset with roughly 600 variables, we employed computational analysis in order to group highly correlated variables into dense, noise-resilient clusters [14] known as paracliques [15]. This approach allowed inclusion of a large number of different and highly divergent population level variables, reducing the number of variables under review through graph theoretical techniques, which permitted us to apply traditional and otherwise unscalable statistical analysis techniques.

2. Materials and Methods

This study applied a data driven approach, taking the example of preterm birth as the outcome of interest. Graph theory and combinatorial analysis, plus spatial and traditional statistical methods were applied. These allowed analysis of these large data sets to provide insights for improving population health. Aggregate, county-level, population health and environmental measures were employed.

2.1. Definitions

County prematurity percentage is calculated as the number of singleton births at gestational ages 24–33 weeks, divided by the number of singleton births of gestational age greater or equal to 24 weeks, in each county. Births weeks 34–36 are also traditionally considered preterm but in this study these births were not included in the numerator to increase the ability to differentiate between normal and abnormal.

2.2. Data Sources

County prematurity percentage was derived from the CDC public Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) internet site [16] which is based on natality file data. The source of the natality files is the birth certificate of all recorded live births. Data were downloaded in two separate time-periods: years 2003–2006 and 2007–2011. An annual average rate for the period 2003–2011 was derived to increase the county-level birth sample and to provide a more stable county value. County numbers of singleton births of gestational age 24–33 (the numerator) and county singleton births of gestational age greater or equal to 24 weeks (the denominator) were downloaded to calculate the county prematurity percentage. Births before gestational age 24 weeks were not included in the numerator or denominator due to concerns over variation in reporting of number of live births at this extremely preterm gestational age. All races were included. Only counties with greater than 100,000 persons are geographically identified in the publically-available CDC data source giving 524 counties that could be linked by county code to other data sources. Counties with less than 100,000 persons were identified by state only, and were not included in this study. 77.4% of all singleton births of gestational age greater or equal to 24 weeks were included in the geographically identified counties.
Data for the county explanatory variables were derived from a number of sources. The US 2004 national natality file (excluding non-singleton births, non-US residents and births before 24 weeks or unknown gestation) provided by the CDC [17] was used to derive county total and race-specific county mean of mother’s age, and proportion of mothers who are married. Similarly, total and race-specific county mean birth weights were calculated using births between 37–41 weeks. The US 2002 national natality file [18] (with the same exclusions as the 2004 file) provided county proportion of mothers who started prenatal care after 3 months or did not receive prenatal care, proportion of mothers who smoke and proportion with number of years of education over 15 years. The 2004 file was selected as the most recent file with county geographical identifiers. Variables that were missing information due to a 2003 revision of the birth certificate were taken from the 2002 file. For both the 2002 and 2004 natality files, county measures were not included when the denominator was less than 30 births. Another 556 explanatory variables were derived from the Meharry public health exposome database, providing county level exposure measures of the natural, built, social and policy environments, including health care provision, among others. Measures of average fine particulate matter air pollution were collected from the CDC Wonder site [19]; data for the prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and diabetes were obtained from CDC Interactive Atlases [20]; data concerning health services and additional socio-economic indicators were from the Area Resource File [21]; county level estimates of black residential isolation were obtained from the publicly available web site of the Arizona State University GeoDa Center [22]; and measures of socio-economic characteristics of a county were collected from the 2000 and 2010 United States Census of Population as compiled by GeoLytics, Inc. (East Brunswick, NJ, USA). GeoLytics produces estimates based on US Census Bureau data and limited population estimates. Additionally, county measures of sexually transmitted infection (STI) levels were obtained from CDC Interactive Atlases [23] and HIV and drug related mortality rates from CDC Wonder [24]. Three variables (two representing black population proportion and one representing number of hot days) were log transformed to correct normality (Shapiro-Wilk’s < 0.8). The prematurity percentage data was linked by county to the Meharry public health exposome database, leaving 520 counties for analysis.

2.3. Analysis

A first goal was to assign variables to subsets, so that variables within a subset possess some quantifiable measure of similarity. Foundational to our approach was the use of graph theoretical algorithms and clique-centric tools, which have been shown to outperform conventional clustering methods in numerous applications. See, for example, [14]. It is noteworthy that, unlike with most traditional clustering methods, cliques need not be disjoint. A vertex may lie in more than one clique, just as a variable may be involved in more than one latent factor. Moreover, the usual clustering goal is to maximize edge density. Observe that a cluster’s density is maximized with clique by definition. We recognized, of course, that data is seldom complete or perfect, and so we relaxed clique’s stringency slightly with the use of the paraclique algorithm, first pioneered in [15], to account for noise. For more information on this approach in the context of health disparities, see [25]. Thus, we began by extracting paracliques, then applying factor isolation using the paracliques most highly correlated to the outcome, next performing backward stepwise regression using the extracted factors as independent variables, and finally analyzing residuals. Variables were denoted by nodes, and edges were weighted with Pearson correlation coefficients. Absolute thresholding at 0.61 was performed using spectral methods [26]. Our focus was thereby reduced from the entire parameter space to tightly connected subsets (clusters) of explanatory variables. Paracliques with median correlation to the prematurity outcome variable of at least 0.38 were retained for further processing. Exploratory factor analysis was then applied to each paraclique, iterating until all factor variables had correlation to the factor of at least 0.45. Oblique rotation, allowing correlation between factors (promax), was employed [27]. The number of factors to be retained was guided by the SAS system (proc factor), using the default proportion criteria, where 100% of the common variance is accounted for by the retained factors [28]. Two variables were excluded before factor extraction: one represented black Protestant rates of adherence, which had missing values for counties with low black proportion, and average life expectancy, which would have resulted in a combination of outcome and non-outcome variables. Factors comprised only of outcome variables were not included in further analysis. The extracted factors were entered into a regression model excluding four factors due to missing values in more than 10% of county values; Race/STI, Mother’s Education, Education Black and Income, Married, Age Black (Table 1). We ran Anselin’s Local Moran’s I statistics to determine whether the dependent variable was spatially clustered. Upon confirmation of the existence of spatial clustering in prematurity level, spatial autocorrelation was considered at all steps. Longitude and latitude county values were converted to miles accounting for the sphericity of the earth (cartesian projection). Spatial random effects in multiple linear regressions were accounted for using a spherical spatial model, with the prematurity percentage (logit transformed for normality) as the dependent variable, and the extracted factors as independent variables. The range value for model residuals was estimated using the variogram model, but we let the mixed model fit the sill and nugget values. The independent variables in the model were eliminated using backward sequential selection based on p-values. Using maximum likelihood as the criterion of fit [29] an R-squared value was calculated.
Table 1. Paracliques with median pairwise correlation > 0.38 to prematurity and factors extracted from these paracliques (two paracliques made up of outcome variables alone are not shown).
Table 1. Paracliques with median pairwise correlation > 0.38 to prematurity and factors extracted from these paracliques (two paracliques made up of outcome variables alone are not shown).
ParacliqueVariablesExtracted FactorsPearson Correlation of Factor to Logit PrematurityN
1.Log (percent black/African Am pop, 2000)Black population proportion0.686520
Black isolation index, 2000
Log (% Black, 2008)
Rate gonorrhea, 2011STI0.710520
Rate chlamydia, 2011
Black Protestant-rates of adherence per 1,000 population, (2010)Excluded (missing values)
Low birth weight (<2500 gram)Excluded (outcome variables)
Very low birth weight (<1500 gram)
Premature birth; singleton births 24–33 weeks/singleton births ≥ 24 weeks
2.Births to unmarried womenMarried mother−0.749520
% married mothers
Percent Medicaid eligible female, 2004Medicaid0.428520
Medicaid eligible total, 2004
Percent Medicaid eligible male, 2004Medicaid males0.465520
Percent food stamp/SNAP * recipients, 2005Poverty and teen birth0.671520
Poverty rate, 2008
Child poverty rate, 2008
Median household income
Births to women under 18
SNAP *authorized stores/ 1000 pop, 2008Not included (below threshold for factors)
Free lunch %, 2008
3.Percent white population, 2000Race/STI0.468439
Rate HIV mortality
Rate HIV prevalence
Rate syphilis
4.Number of days with maximum temperatures ≥ 90 degrees FarenheitTemperature/Divorce0.433512
Daily maximum temperature 1999–2009
Divorced rate
Average minimum daily temperatureTemperature/Land0.441520
Average nightly land surface temperature
Average daily land surface temperatureSunlight0.219520
Average direct solar radiation in kilojoules per square meter
Percent less than 65 no health insuranceNo Health Insurance0.203520
Percent females less than 65 no health insurance
5.Adult diabetes rateDiabetes/Obesity0.603520
Age-adjusted rates of leisure-time physical inactivity, 2009
Adult obesity rate
Age adjusted obesity rates, 2009
Average life expectancyExcluded (outcome)
6.Rate of hospital admissions, 2005Hospital Admissions0.465520
Rate of short term general hospital admissions, 2005
Rate of short term community hospital admissions, 2005
Rate of medical/surgical intensive care beds, 2006Hospital Beds10.427520
Rate of operating rooms, 2005
Rate of licensed beds short term hospital, 2005
Rate of licensed beds total hospital, 2005
Rate medical/surgical adult beds
Rate of hospital beds, 2005Hospital Beds20.467520
Rate of short term general hospital beds, 2005
Rate of total inpatient beds
Rate surgical operations inpatientSurgical Operations0.357520
Rate surgical operations total
Rate hospital bedsHospital Beds30.416520
Rate of short term community hospital. beds, 2005Not included (below threshold for factors)
7.Average daily maximum heat indexHeat Index0.492511
Daily maximum heat index 1999–2009
Log (number of days with maximum temperatures ≥ 100 degrees Farenheit)
Index combining average fine particulate matter with average daily maximum temperature.Pollution0.528512
Normalized average fine particulate matter (2003–2008) plus average daily maximum heat index 1999–2009
8.Per capita income, 2005Income/Private Practice−0.360520
Rate dentists private practice, 2007
Births to women over 40Mother’s Age−0.563520
Mean mother age
Percent mother’s education > 15 yearsMother’s Education−0.529453
9.Median household income, whiteMedicare Disabled/Income0.411520
Percent Medicare enrollment disabled hospital insurance, 2005
Percent Medicare enrollment disabled, 2005
Percent Medicare enrollment disabled supplementary medical insurance, 2005
Less than high school white female %, 2010Low Education White0.451520
White low education %, 2000
10.College black female %, 2010Education Black−0.491387
College black male %, 2010h
Black high education %, 2000
Percent mothers education > 15 years, black
Mean mother age, blackIncome, Married, Age Black−0.563443
Median household income, 2000, black
Per capita income 2010, black
Married mothers, black
11.GINI inequality index, 2000Income Inequality0.431520
Theil inequality index, 1990
Gini index, 2010
12.Black low education %, 2000Low Education, Black10.410520
Black male low education %, 2000
Black female low education %, 2000Low Education, Female Black20.471520
Less than high school black male %, 2010Not included (below threshold for factors)
13.Median age black/African American female, 2000Aged Black0.443520
Percent African American females 65+, 2000
Percent African American males 65+, 2000
14.Separated/widow/divorced white %, 2010Separated White10.404520
Separated/widow/divorced white female %, 2010
Separated/widow/divorced white male%, 2010Separated White20.312520
Percent divorced females
15.Teen birth rateReligion/Teenbirth/Stores0.510520
Convenience stores with gas/ 1000 pop, 2008
Evangelical Protestant rates of adherence per 1,000 population, (2010)
* SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The county studentized residuals from the final model were mapped in 5 groups to examine the geographical distribution of the outliers; <−2.0, −2 to −1.5, −1.5 to 1.5, 1.5 to 2.0 and >2.0. Those counties with studentized residuals <−1.5 were classed as an overpredicted group, while those with studentized residuals >1.5 were classed as an underpredicted group, and those between −1.5 to 1.5 formed an intermediate group (residual groups). As regression modelling does not guarantee that the overpredicted and underpredicted counties are equivalent in terms of the explanatory variables, these groups were compared by key variables such as county poverty prevalence, percent African-American and proportion not starting prenatal care in the first three months of pregnancy using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Premature birth rate was also compared between the three groups. In a sensitivity analysis to examine the effect of including a variable representing prenatal care in the regression, (prenatal care had not been included because the correlation of the paraclique representing prenatal care to the outcome was less than the threshold for factor extraction), backward selection starting with the same factors entered into the original regression plus a variable representing prenatal care, was carried out. The regression model was partially reduced to a point retaining the variable representing prenatal care, and the residuals used to make the overpredicted, underpredicted and intermediate groups. The groups were compared by the prenatal care variable.
Level of significance for statistical tests was set at p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed in SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA), and mapping in ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 10.2 (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA, USA).

3. Results

County prematurity percentages ranged from 1.155/100 in Marin County, California to 5.917/100 in Hinds County, Mississippi. A high degree of correlation between the two periods (years 2003–2006 and 2007–2011) was found; R = 0.905, p < 0.0001 (Pearson’s correlation). There was therefore a tendency for counties with higher percentages in the first period also to be higher in the second period, indicating a real rather than a random finding. Geographically, higher county prematurity percentages were more commonly found in the southeastern United States, with lower values in the northeastern states and in the West (Figure 1).
Figure 1. County prematurity percentage. N = 520.
Figure 1. County prematurity percentage. N = 520.
Ijerph 11 12346 g001
Forty-eight paracliques were generated using 284 county-level variables. Paraclique sizes ranged from 3 to 34 variables. Seventeen paracliques had an absolute median correlation to county preterm birth rate at or above 0.38. 33 factors were extracted from these paracliques (Table 1). These factors covered a wide range of constructs, including black proportion, obesity and diabetes, STI rates, mother’s age, income, marriage rates, pollution and temperature among others. Some factors comprised variables from different concepts (e.g., poverty and teen-birth), while others combined different variables within a single concept.
A variogram of the residuals showed an increase in variance between county pairs to a range of about 230 miles (Figure 2). Correction for spatial autocorrelation with a spherical covariance matrix improved fit of the model (as measured by the AIC Akaike Information Criterion) from −709.6 to −811.1. The regression model was reduced by backward selection to leave nine independent variables (nine of the extracted factors as detailed in Table 1); black proportion, STI, married mother, diabetes/obesity, medicare disabled/income, no health insurance, pollution, mother’s age and income/private practice, each with a statistically significant effect on the outcome. Variables married mother and mother’s age were negatively associated with logit county prematurity percentage, while the other variables were positively associated (Table 2).
Figure 2. Spatial variogram used to determine range, scale and nugget used in spherical covariance matrix. The parameters used in the model and as shown in the solid line on the graph were nugget 0.006, range 230 miles and scale 0.0065.
Figure 2. Spatial variogram used to determine range, scale and nugget used in spherical covariance matrix. The parameters used in the model and as shown in the solid line on the graph were nugget 0.006, range 230 miles and scale 0.0065.
Ijerph 11 12346 g002
Table 2. Final regression model of outcome logit county prematurity percentage and extracted factors as independent variables using a spherical covariance matrix (N = 512 counties).
Table 2. Final regression model of outcome logit county prematurity percentage and extracted factors as independent variables using a spherical covariance matrix (N = 512 counties).
FactorParameter EstimateStandard ErrorpAIC
STI0.044310.00921<0.0001−837.6
Black proportion0.059500.01000<0.0001
Married Mother−0.074930.01001<0.0001
Diabetes/Obesity0.028790.010980.0090
Medicare Disabled/Income0.022750.008200.0058
Pollution0.034260.010950.0020
Income/Private Practice0.024810.009510.0094
Mother’s Age−0.047490.013240.0004
No Health Insurance0.034490.00799<0.0001
The map of the residuals from the reduced model using a spherical covariance matrix (Figure 3) shows a similar geographical distribution to that of county prematurity percentage itself, with lower residuals in the West.
The graph of the observed outcome, logit of county prematurity percentage, versus expected (Figure 4) shows that the counties in the underpredicted and overpredicted groups were distributed throughout the range of prematurity percentages. County prematurity percentage was significantly lower in the overpredicted than in the underpredicted group (p < 0.0001). In comparing key county variables (Table 3), significant differences between the residual groups in most variables examined were not found. Median proportion non-Hispanic white population was higher in the intermediate group than in the over and the underpredicted groups (p = 0.0079). Median proportion non-Hispanic African-American population was higher in the underpredicted versus overpredicted counties but this difference was not statistically significant. Variables representing prenatal care not received in first trimester and mother reporting smoking were found to differ significantly between the three groups. When the prenatal care variable was included in the regression model the difference between the groups in prenatal care (proportion of mothers not receiving care in first trimester) remained significant.
Figure 3. Mapping of residuals from reduced model taking into account spatial autocorrelation N = 512.
Figure 3. Mapping of residuals from reduced model taking into account spatial autocorrelation N = 512.
Ijerph 11 12346 g003

Counties where studentized residuals < − 2.0Counties where studentized residuals > 2.0
Hall County, GeorgiaMobile County, Alabama
Humboldt County, CaliforniaShelby County, Alabama
Wichita County, TexasFlorence County, South Carolina
Sonoma County, CaliforniaWebb County, Texas
Yolo County, CaliforniaPickens County, South Carolina
Marin County, CaliforniaTuscaloosa County, Alabama
Tom Green County, TexasEssex County, New Jersey
El Paso County, Colorado
Yakima County, Washington
Rankin County, Mississippi
Waukesha County, Wisconsin
Hinds County, Mississippi
Coconino County, Arizona
Figure 4. Observed logit of county prematurity percentage versus predicted (N = 512) in the overpredicted group (studentized residuals <−1.5), the underpredicted group (studentized residuals >1.5) and the intermediate group (studentized residuals −1.5 to 1.5).
Figure 4. Observed logit of county prematurity percentage versus predicted (N = 512) in the overpredicted group (studentized residuals <−1.5), the underpredicted group (studentized residuals >1.5) and the intermediate group (studentized residuals −1.5 to 1.5).
Ijerph 11 12346 g004
Table 3. Median values of selected predictor variables in county groups divided by studentized residuals.
Table 3. Median values of selected predictor variables in county groups divided by studentized residuals.
Overpredicted Group, Studentized Residuals <−1.5Studentized Residuals −1.5–+1.5Underpredicted Group, Studentized Residuals > +1.5p
Prenatal care not received in first 3 months of pregnancy16.3%, N = 1914.8%, N = 40518.5%, N = 230.0197
Poverty rate14.1%, N = 2312.2%, N = 45912.8%, N = 300.2901
Non-Hispanic Black Proportion5.5%, N = 237.6%, N = 4599.6%, N = 300.3929
Non-Hispanic White Proportion64.4%, N = 2377.4%, N = 45964.7%, N = 300.0079
Age Adjusted Obesity 200927.8%, N = 2328.4%, N = 45927.2%, N = 300.2802
Rate Gonorrhea116.4/100,000, N = 2367.8/100,000, N = 45962.3/100,000, N = 300.9458
Mean Mother Age27.0, N = 2327.2, N = 45927.1, N = 300.6735
Mother smoker10.7%, N = 912.9%, N = 3838.6%, N = 230.0065
Married mothers61.2%, N = 2364.2%, N = 45965.8%, N = 300.6742
Mothers education >15 years26.3%, N = 1925.6%, N = 40527.1%, N = 230.7891

4. Discussion

A main aim of our work has been to apply state-of-the-art computational tools to generate hypotheses that can explain variation in health outcomes. A major focus has been not only to suggest what might be useful to study, but also to identify spatial units that might be a good place to look. Future investigations may attempt to explain why certain counties have a lower prematurity percentage than expected from the predictors included in the model (resilient counties), potentially revealing protective mechanisms. A comparison of counties that are similar in expected rates but quite different in observed could allow previously unidentified mechanisms to become more apparent. Although some of the counties may be outlying by chance, the concentration of positive or negative residual counties in the same states points against the role of chance. We found a concentration of overpredicted counties in California. Detailed follow-up studies to investigate the mechanisms underlying the resiliency versus vulnerability of extreme counties are required. Of course the role of reporting differences or reporting errors needs to be eliminated as a possible reason for differences.
In a previous study investigating geographical variation in black infant mortality rate, counties with rates significantly less than that predicted by the model were identified as resilient counties [30]. In these counties the racial disparities in infant mortality were eliminated despite a lower educational attainment and higher levels of poverty in blacks compared to whites in the same counties. It was suggested that these counties could provide models for success in elimination of health disparities independent of socioeconomic status. In a study examining disparity in HIV mortality before and after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral treatment (HARRT) [31], the effect of place was found to be important, with some communities, particularly those with high pre-HAART disparities, more vulnerable than others. It was found that some of the counties with particularly high disparities were contiguous, suggesting a shared experience.
Our methodology allowed a relatively hypothesis-free approach to the investigation of county variation in prematurity rates. The methodology was not completely hypothesis free, because prior assumptions still influenced the choice of variables that were included in the data set, but a wide variety of variables was provided. An analysis strategy capable of handling roughly 600 explanatory variables was needed. Two strategies were used to reduce the number of independent variables to a manageable level for use in regression. First, scalable graph algorithms were employed to produce strongly correlated sets of variables (paracliques). Second, filtering by strength of correlation of the paraclique to the outcome, with subsequent extraction of the underlying constructs contained in the selected paracliques, was performed. Traditionally, exploratory factor analysis has been used to reveal the underlying structure of a set of interrelated variables from a questionnaire without imposing any preconceived structure on the outcome, identifying the number of constructs and underlying factor structure of a group of correlated variables [32]. We have used the same principles, using data from population data sets rather than questionnaires to extract common factors. These factors can then be input as dependent variables into regression analysis. Using these methods we managed to include many more variables than are usually included, using the range of data that is now available.
The predictors themselves may provide directions for future investigation. These predictors were extracted from an extensive database, allowing a data-driven approach to identify them. This provided a higher likelihood of finding relevant and previously unidentified factors than if a limited number of variables had been pre-selected based on previous research. The predictors found to be significant in the regression model (county black proportion, STI rates, diabetes/obesity rates, Medicare disabled enrollment/income rate, percentage of married mothers, pollution, mother’s age, no health insurance rates) should reflect factors that are common enough and increase risk enough to show an effect at the aggregate level.
There has been recent interest in maternal obesity as a predictor of preterm birth. In a large Swedish cohort [33], the risk of both medically indicated and spontaneous preterm birth were shown to increase with body mass index and obesity. The high rate of obesity in the US, about twice that of Sweden, was noted to have extensive implications for preterm birth rate. The effect of obesity without glucose dysfunction, however, was not examined in this study. We found that obesity, diabetes and physical activity were highly correlated, as expected, since obesity is an important precursor of diabetes. Diabetes has been associated with preeclampsia which can lead to a medically indicated preterm birth [34]; additionally there is evidence for an association of diabetes with spontaneous preterm birth. In a US cohort study, both gestational diabetes and glucose dysfunction not severe enough to be termed gestational diabetes were shown to increase the risk of spontaneous preterm birth [35].
The association we found of Medicare-disabled-enrolled with preterm birth is probably a reflection of the general population of the county rather than a reflection of the population of mothers. Medicare assistance is available to certain qualifying patients under the age of 65 with long-term disabilities such as end-stage renal disease. This implies that the counties with the highest burden of chronic disease are the same counties as those with the highest preterm birth rates, suggesting an underlying common mechanism such as poverty-related factors leading to both high rates of Medicare-disabled-enrolled and high rates of preterm births in the same counties.
The validity of the STI data is a potential limitation of this study. County STI rates are based on surveillance data using reported cases to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [23]. Reporting from public sources is thought to be more complete than reporting from private sources [36], and a reporting bias is possible with increased reporting in lower socioeconomic groups. Nevertheless, previous studies have shown an association between STI and preterm birth [37]. In a study based on a cohort of low income women in South Carolina, women diagnosed with trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia/non-gonococcal urethritis had increased risk of very preterm and late preterm birth. In a multivariate model, STI was more strongly associated with very preterm than with late preterm birth [38]. It is possible that gonorrhea and chlamydia county rates as included in the STI factor in our study are markers for an associated risk factor for preterm birth such as bacterial vaginosis [39].
Other limitations of this analysis include the cross-sectional and aggregate (county-level rather than individual level) nature of the data. In addition, the analysis indicates predictors of the county preterm birth rate rather than causal pathway. Another limitation relates to the data including problems such as missing values, variables that are distributed non-normally and a combination of outcome and non-outcome variables in the same data-set. Additionally, results are not provided for population groups at different risks of preterm birth. Risk factors might differ between different races and ethnicities and for different preterm birth types.

5. Conclusions

In summary, this study provides a county level analysis of social and environmental predictors of preterm birth, in US counties of greater than 100,000 persons, using a very large data set of routinely collected variables. A novel methodology for analysis of a very large data set was used. Avenues for future investigation into the common and most operative forces leading to preterm birth were suggested, as well as identification of resilient counties for investigation of potential protective mechanisms. Although preterm birth rates were available by race, many of the explanatory variables were not, so this analysis was performed at the total county population level. While most of the predictors of premature birth have been previously identified in individual studies, no single study has identified all of them collectively. In this manner, this exemplar validates the application of a data-driven approach and computational methods to the large, combined, disparate data sets encompassed by the public health exposome and the examination of complex social problems such as health disparities. Other data-driven analytical approaches in a more network directed analysis have shown promise with this data [25] and will be explored further. In future studies, we intend to replicate these methods with other health disparities that have been found to have complex etiologies, such as lung cancer, breast cancer, cardio-vascular disease, and homicide. In addition, in the next phase of our research, we are working on growing the public health exposome database from 600 to over 15,000 variables. The public health exposome provides a promising approach for identifying complex underlying factors associated with health disparities, identifying communities at high and low risk, and developing appropriate targeted interventions.

Acknowledgments

Funding was made possible in part by grant 3P20MD000516-08S2 jointly from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Environmental Protection Agency, by grant R01AA018776 jointly from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center/Research Center on Health Disparities, Equity and the Exposome, the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, an Institute sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture through NSF Awards #EF-0832858 and #DBI-1300426, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the University of Tennessee or the National Science Foundation.

Author Contributions

Anne D. Kershenbaum, Michael A. Langston, Robert S. Levine, Arnold M. Saxton, Tonny J. Oyana and Paul D. Juarez conceived and designed the study; Barbara J. Kilbourne, Anne D. Kershenbaum and Robert S. Levine collected the data; Anne D. Kershenbaum and Arnold M. Saxton analyzed the data and produced the graphs; Arnold M. Saxton advised on statistical analysis; Gary L. Rogers and Michael A. Langston provided the computational analysis; Tonny J. Oyana advised on geographical analysis; Anne D. Kershenbaum drafted the article and Michael A. Langston, Robert S. Levine, Tonny J. Oyana, Barbara J. Kilbourne, Suzanne H. Baktash, Lisaann S. Gittner, Patricia Matthews-Juarez and Paul D. Juarez contributed to the writing of the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Callaghan, W.M.; MacDorman, M.F.; Rasmussen, S.A.; Qin, C.; Lackritz, E.M. The contribution of preterm birth to infant mortality rates in the United States. Pediatrics 2006, 118, 1566–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hamilton, B.E.; Martin, J.A.; Ventura, S.J. Births: Preliminary Data for 2011. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  3. Hoyert, D.L.; Xu, J. Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  4. MacDorman, M.F.; Hoyert, D.L.; Mathews, T.J. Recent declines in infant mortality in the United States, 2005–2011. NCHS Data Brief 2013, 120, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health: Preterm Birth. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pretermbirth.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  6. O’Campo, P.; Burke, J.G.; Culhane, J.; Elo, I.T.; Eyster, J.; Holzman, C.; Messer, L.C.; Kaufman, J.S.; Laraia, B.A. Neighborhood deprivation and preterm birth among non-hispanic black and white women in eight geographic areas in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 167, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Schoendorf, K.C.; Hogue, C.J.; Kleinman, J.C.; Rowley, D. Mortality among infants of black as compared with white college-educated parents. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992, 326, 1522–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Foster, H.W.; Wu, L.; Bracken, M.B.; Semenya, K.; Thomas, J.; Thomas, J. Intergenerational effects of high socioeconomic status on low birthweight and preterm birth in African Americans. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2000, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rappazzo, K.M.; Daniels, J.L.; Messer, L.C.; Poole, C.; Lobdell, D.T. Exposure to fine particulate matter during pregnancy and risk of preterm birth among women in New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, 2000–2005. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 992–997. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Goldenberg, R.L.; Cliver, S.P.; Mulvihill, F.X.; Hickey, C.A.; Hoffman, H.J.; Klerman, L.V.; Johnson, M.J. Medical, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors do not explain the increased risk for low birth weight among black women. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996, 175, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wild, C.P. The exposome: From concept to utility. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 41, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Juarez, P. Sequencing the public health genome. J. Health Care Poor Underserved 2013, 24, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Juarez, P.D.; Matthews-Juarez, P.; Hood, D.B.; Im, W.; Levine, R.S.; Kilbourne, B.J.; Langston, M.A.; Alhamdan, M.Z.; Crosson, W.L.; Estes, M.G.; et al. A population-based, exposure science approach to health disparities research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. (accepted for publication).
  14. Jay, J.J.; Eblen, J.D.; Zhang, Y.; Benson, M.; Perkins, A.D.; Saxton, A.M.; Voy, B.H.; Chesler, E.J.; Langston, M.A. A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms. BMC Bioinform. 2012, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chesler, E.J.; Langston, M.A. Combinatorial genetic regulatory network analysis tools for high throughput transcriptomic data. In Systems Biology and Regulatory Genomics; Eskin, E., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Volume 4023, pp. 150–165.
  16. United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National center for health statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Natality Public-Use Data CDC Wonder Online Database. Available online: http://wonder.cdc.gov/natality/.html (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  17. National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, Maryland. Datafile 2004. Available online: http://www.nber.org/data/vital-statistics-natality-data.html (accessed on 8 February 2014).
  18. National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, Maryland. Datafile 2002. Available online: http://www.nber.org/data/vital-statistics-natality-data.html (accessed on 8 February 2014).
  19. CDC WONDER Online Database. Daily Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (µg/m³) for years 2003–2008. Available online: http://wonder.cdc.gov/NASA-PM.html (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  20. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Division of Diabetes Translation. Diabetes Interactive Atlases. Maps and Data Tables. County Data. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/atlas/interactive_atlas.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  21. US Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions Rockville MD. Area Resource File, 2011–2012. Available online: http://ahrf.hrsa.gov/ (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  22. GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation. Diversity and Social Segregation. Available online: http://geodacenter.asu.edu/%5Btermalias-raw%5D/diversity-and-s-0 (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  23. US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for HIV STD and TB Prevention (NCHSTP). Sexually Transmitted diseasE Morbidity 1996–2011, by Gender, Age Group and Race/Ethnicity. C.D.C. Wonder Online Database. Available online: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/std-std-race-age.html (accessed on 8 December 2013).
  24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. Underlying Cause of Death 1999–2010 on CDC Wonder Online Database. Available online: http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html (accessed on 8 November 2013).
  25. Langston, M.A.; Levine, R.S.; Kilbourne, B.J.; Rogers, G.L.; Kershenbaum, A.D.; Baktash, S.H.; Coughlin, S.S.; Saxton, A.M.; Agboto, V.K.; Hood, D.B.; et al. Scalable combinatorial tools for health disparities research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 10419–10443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Perkins, A.D.; Langston, M.A. Threshold selection in gene co-expression networks using spectral graph theory techniques. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Consulting group of the Division of Statistics and Scientific Computing at the University of Texas at Austin. Institute for Digital Research and Education. U.C.L.A. Factor Analysis Using SAS Proc Factor. Available online: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/library/factor_ut.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  28. SAS/STAT(R) 9.22 User’s Guide. Available online: http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63347/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_factor_sect006.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  29. Nagelkerke, N.J.D. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991, 78, 691–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fry-Johnson, Y.W.; Levine, R.; Rowley, D.; Agboto, V.; Rust, G. United States black: White infant mortality disparities are not inevitable: Identification of community resilience independent of socioeconomic status. Ethn. Dis. 2010, 20, S131–S135. [Google Scholar]
  31. Levine, R.S.; Briggs, N.C.; Kilbourne, B.S.; King, W.D.; Fry-Johnson, Y.; Baltrus, P.T.; Husaini, B.A.; Rust, G.S. Black–white mortality from HIV in the united states before and after introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in 1996. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Suhr, D.D. Sugi 31. Statistics and Data Analysis. Paper 200–31. Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Available online: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/200–C31.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  33. Cnattingius, S.; Villamor, E.; Johansson, S.; Edstedt Bonamy, A.K.; Persson, M.; Wikström, A.K.; Granath, F. Maternal obesity and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 2013, 309, 2362–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Berkowitz, G.S.; Blackmore-Prince, C.; Lapinski, R.H.; Savitz, D.A. Risk factors for preterm birth subtypes. Epidemiology 1998, 9, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hedderson, M.M.; Ferrara, A.; Sacks, D.A. Gestational diabetes mellitus and lesser degrees of pregnancy hyperglycemia: Association with increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003, 102, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011 Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance. S.T.Ds in Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/minorities.htm (accessed on 8 October 2014).
  37. Donders, G.; Desmyter, J.; de Wet, D.; van Assche, F.A. The association of gonorrhoea and syphilis with premature birth and low birthweight. Genitourin. Med. 1993, 69, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Mann, J.R.; McDermott, S.; Gill, T. Sexually transmitted infection is associated with increased risk of preterm birth in South Carolina women insured by Medicaid. J. Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010, 23, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fiscella, K. Racial disparities in preterm births. The role of urogenital infections. Public Health Rep. 1996, 111, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kershenbaum, A.D.; Langston, M.A.; Levine, R.S.; Saxton, A.M.; Oyana, T.J.; Kilbourne, B.J.; Rogers, G.L.; Gittner, L.S.; Baktash, S.H.; Matthews-Juarez, P.; Juarez, P.D. Exploration of Preterm Birth Rates Using the Public Health Exposome Database and Computational Analysis Methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 12346-12366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212346

AMA Style

Kershenbaum AD, Langston MA, Levine RS, Saxton AM, Oyana TJ, Kilbourne BJ, Rogers GL, Gittner LS, Baktash SH, Matthews-Juarez P, Juarez PD. Exploration of Preterm Birth Rates Using the Public Health Exposome Database and Computational Analysis Methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11(12):12346-12366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212346

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kershenbaum, Anne D., Michael A. Langston, Robert S. Levine, Arnold M. Saxton, Tonny J. Oyana, Barbara J. Kilbourne, Gary L. Rogers, Lisaann S. Gittner, Suzanne H. Baktash, Patricia Matthews-Juarez, and Paul D. Juarez. 2014. "Exploration of Preterm Birth Rates Using the Public Health Exposome Database and Computational Analysis Methods" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11, no. 12: 12346-12366. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212346

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop