Unit for Social Epidemiology, CRC, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Oct;75(8):1477-87. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.004. Epub 2012 Jul 3.
We performed a multilevel analysis (including individuals, households, census tracts, municipalities and provinces) on a 10% sample (N=230,978) from the Longitudinal Database of the Andalusian Population (LDAP). We aimed to investigate place effects on 8-year individual mortality risk. Moreover, besides calculating association (yielding odds ratios, ORs) between area socio-economic circumstances and individual risk, we wanted to estimate variance and clustering using the variance partition coefficient (VPC). We explicitly proclaim the relevance of considering general contextual effects (i.e. the degree to which the context, as a whole, affects individual variance in mortality risk) under at least two circumstances. The first of these concerns the interpretation of specific contextual effects (i.e. the association between a particular area characteristic and individual risk) obtained from multilevel regression analyses. The second involves the interpretation of geographical variance obtained from classic ecological spatial analyses. The so-called "ecological fallacy" apart, the lack of individual-level information renders geographical variance unrelated to the total individual variation and, therefore, difficult to interpret. Finally, we stress the importance of considering the familial household in multilevel analyses. We observed an association between percentage of people with a low educational level in the census tract and individual mortality risk (OR, highest v. lowest quintile=1.14; 95% confidence interval, CI 1.08-1.20). However, only a minor proportion of the total individual variance in the probability of dying was at the municipality (M) and census tract (CT) levels (VPC(M)=0.2% and VPC(CT)=0.3%). Conversely, the household (H) level appeared much more relevant (VPC(H)=18.6%) than the administrative geographical areas. Without considering general contextual effects, both multilevel analyses of specific contextual effects and ecological studies of small-area variation may provide a misleading picture that overstates the role of administrative areas as contextual determinants of individual differences in mortality.
我们对来自安达卢西亚人口纵向数据库(LDAP)的 10%样本(N=230978)进行了多层次分析(包括个人、家庭、普查区、市和省)。我们旨在研究地点对 8 年个体死亡风险的影响。此外,除了计算区域社会经济环境与个体风险之间的关联(产生优势比,OR)外,我们还希望使用方差分解系数(VPC)来估计方差和聚类。我们明确宣称,在至少两种情况下,考虑一般背景效应(即整个背景对个体死亡风险的个体方差的影响程度)具有相关性。第一种情况涉及从多层次回归分析中获得的特定背景效应(即特定区域特征与个体风险之间的关联)的解释。第二种情况涉及从经典生态空间分析中获得的地理方差的解释。除了所谓的“生态谬误”之外,缺乏个体水平的信息使得地理方差与个体总变异无关,因此难以解释。最后,我们强调在多层次分析中考虑家庭的重要性。我们观察到普查区低教育水平人群比例与个体死亡风险之间存在关联(OR,最高五分位 v. 最低五分位=1.14;95%置信区间,CI 1.08-1.20)。然而,个人死亡概率的总个体变异中只有一小部分存在于市(M)和普查区(CT)水平(VPC(M)=0.2%,VPC(CT)=0.3%)。相反,家庭(H)水平似乎更为相关(VPC(H)=18.6%),而行政地理区域则不那么重要。如果不考虑一般背景效应,特定背景效应的多层次分析和小区域变化的生态研究可能会提供一个误导性的图景,夸大行政区域作为个体差异死亡的背景决定因素的作用。