1 / 33

Ecologic studies

Ecologic studies. JF Boivin. S:BOIVIN695Winter 2006Ecologic studies.ppt ( September 7, 2014 ). Outline. Examples Definition Ecologic fallacy Definition Valid ecologic study Rate difference varies Reference rate varies 4. Ecologic confounder Types of ecologic exposures

murray
Download Presentation

Ecologic studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ecologic studies JF Boivin S:\BOIVIN\695\Winter 2006\Ecologic studies.ppt (September 7, 2014)

  2. Outline • Examples • Definition • Ecologic fallacy • Definition • Valid ecologic study • Rate difference varies • Reference rate varies 4. Ecologic confounder • Types of ecologic exposures • Rationale for ecologic studies

  3. (Goodman DC, et al. NEJM 2002)

  4. Outline • Examples • Definition • Ecologic fallacy • Definition • Valid ecologic study • Rate difference varies • Reference rate varies 4. Ecologic confounder • Types of ecologic exposures • Rationale for ecologic studies

  5. Ecologic study A study in which the units of analysis are populations or groups of people, rather than individuals. (Last. 2001)

  6. E+ E+ E- E- D+ ? ? M2+ M1+ D+ ? ? D- ? ? M1- D- ? ? M2- N1+ N2+ N2- N1- Structure of an ecologic study: Counts Group 1 Group 2

  7. E+ E+ E- E- D+ D+ ? ? ? ? M1+ M2+ PY PY PY2+ PY1+ PY2- PY1- PY1T PY2T Person-years Group 1 Group 2

  8. Group 1 (provinces with protestant minority) Protestant Protestant Other Other Suicide Suicide ? ? ? ? 10 20 PY PY 800,000 300,000 200,000 700,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Group 2 (provinces with protestant majority) Durkheim’s study

  9. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Actual study Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

  10. Outline • Examples • Definition • Ecologic fallacy • Definition • Valid ecologic study • Rate difference varies • Reference rate varies across • Ecologic confounder • Types of ecologic exposures • Rationale for ecologic studies

  11. Ecologic fallacy “… the mistaken assumption that a statistical association observed between two ecologic (group-level) variables… is equal to the association between the corresponding variables at the individual level…” (Encyclopedia of epidemiologic methods. 2000)

  12. Ecologic fallacy “…the ecologic fallacy is due to cross-level bias in estimating the biologic effect of an exposure on disease risk on the basis of ecologic data… In an ecologic analysis involving simple linear regression, cross-level bias arises when the disease rate in the unexposed (reference) population is correlated with exposure prevalence across groups or when the difference in rates between exposed and unexposed populations (biologic effect) varies across groups.” (Encyclopedia of epidemiologic methods. 2000)

  13. E- E+ 200/100,000 = 28 D+ 16 12 = 100/100,000 RD = 100/100,000 RD = 100/100,000 PY 8,000 12,000 20,000 RR = 2 RR = 2 % exposure % exposure = = 8,000/20,000 12,000/20,000 = = 60% 40% Io = 100/100,000 Group rate Group rate = = = = 140/100,000 160/100,000 32/20,000 28/20,000 IE 200/100,000 = E+ E- 32 D+ 24 8 PY 12,000 8,000 20,000 No ecologic bias Group 1 (Québec) IE Io Group 2 (Ontario) Adapted from Rothman-Greenland Table 23-2

  14. IE Io 200/100,000 IRR = = = 2 No ecologic bias 200 190 180 170 160 150 RATE (per 100,000) 140 130 120 110 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 80 % EXPOSURE 100/100,000

  15. E- E+ 33 D+ 20 13 RD RD = = 186/100,000 54/100,000 PY 7,000 13,000 20,000 RR RR = = 2.86 1.54 % exposure % exposure = = 7,000/20,000 13,000/20,000 = = 65% 35% Io Io = = 100/100,000 100/100,000 Group rate Group rate = = = = 135/100,000 165/100,000 27/20,000 33/20,000 IE IE 286/100,000 154/100,000 = = E+ E- 27 D+ 20 7 PY 13,000 7,000 20,000 Ecologic bias(rate difference varies across groups) Group 1 (Québec) Group 2 (Ontario)

  16. IE Io 100/100,000 IRR = = = 0.5 Ecologic bias 200 190 180 170 160 150 RATE (per 100,000) 140 130 120 110 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 80 % EXPOSURE 200/100,000

  17. E- E+ 28 D+ 16 12 RD RD = = 100/100,000 100/100,000 PY 8,000 12,000 20,000 RR RR = = 2 1.67 % exposure % exposure = = 8,000/20,000 16,000/20,000 = = 80% 40% Io Io = = 150/100,000 100/100,000 Group rate Group rate = = = = 230/100,000 140/100,000 46/20,000 28/20,000 IE IE 200/100,000 250/100,000 = = E+ E- 46 D+ 40 6 PY 16,000 4,000 20,000 Ecologic bias(reference rate varies across groups) Group 1 (Québec) Group 2 (Ontario)

  18. IE Io 275/100,000 IRR = = = 5.5 Ecologic bias 250 200 150 RATE (per 100,000) 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 80 % EXPOSURE 50/100,000

  19. Outline • Examples • Definition • Ecologic fallacy • Definition • Valid ecologic study • Rate difference varies • Reference rate varies • Ecologic confounder • Types of ecologic exposures • Rationale for ecologic studies

  20. Ecologic confounder

  21. Ecologic confounder

  22. Ecologic confounder

  23. Outline • Examples • Definition • Ecologic fallacy • Definition • Valid ecologic study • Rate difference varies • Reference rate varies • Ecologic confounder • Types of ecologic exposures • Rationale for ecologic studies

  24. Aggregate exposure Attributes of individuals that are summarized at the group level • Proportion of smokers • Median family income • Proportion of protestants • Prevalence of subjects who are immune to measles Scientific interest may lie in: • Individual effect • Contextual effect

  25. Intrinsically population-level exposure Attributes of groups for which no distinct analog exists at the individual level • Population density • Law • Health-care system • Social disorganization • Income discrepancy Everybody is exposed!

  26. Neighborhood social class as aggregate of individual social classes Can differ from study subjects’ social class • Neighborhood social class as contextual variable Same contextual variable for all subjects The variable is ecological, but the study is not!

  27. Outline • Examples • Definition • Ecologic fallacy • Definition • Valid ecologic study • Rate difference varies across groups • Reference rate varies across groups • Ecologic confounder • Types of ecologic exposures • Rationale for ecologic studies

  28. Low cost and convenience • Measurement limitation of individual-level studies • Design limitations of individual-level studies • Simplicity of analysis and presentation ? Interest in ecologic effects

  29. References Dales L, et al. Time trends in autism and in MRR immunization coverage in California. JAMA 2001; 285:1183-1185. Durkheim E. Suicide: a study in sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1966. Gail MH, Benichou J, eds. Encyclopedia of epidemiology methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2000. Goodman DC, et al. The relation between the availability of neonatal intensive care and neonatal mortality. NEJM 2002; 346:1538-1544. Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology. Fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 2001. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. Second edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven. 1998.

More Related