Journal of Data Science

Abstract: In the United States, diabetes is common and costly. Programs to prevent new cases of diabetes are often carried out at the level of the county, a unit of local government. Thus, efficient targeting of such programs re quires county-level estimates of diabetes incidence−the fraction of the non diabetic population who received their diagnosis of diabetes during the past 12 months. Previously, only estimates of prevalence−the overall fraction of population who have the disease−have been available at the county level. Counties with high prevalence might or might not be the same as counties with high incidence, due to spatial variation in mortality and relocation of persons with incident diabetes to another county. Existing methods cannot be used to estimate county-level diabetes incidence, because the fraction of the population who receive a diabetes diagnosis in any year is too small. Here, we extend previously developed methods of Bayesian small-area esti mation of prevalence, using diffuse priors, to estimate diabetes incidence for all U.S. counties based on data from a survey designed to yield state-level estimates. We found high incidence in the southeastern United States, the Appalachian region, and in scattered counties throughout the western U.S. Our methods might be applicable in other circumstances in which all cases of a rare condition also must be cases of a more common condition (in this analysis, “newly diagnosed cases of diabetes” and “cases of diabetes”). If ap propriate data are available, our methods can be used to estimate proportion of the population with the rare condition at greater geographic specificity than the data source was designed to provide.

Abstract: The National Immunization Survey (NIS) is the United States’ primary tool for assessing immunization coverage among 19- to 35-monthold children. Although annual estimates from the NIS are quite precise at the national level, US State-level estimates have much larger sampling error than national-level estimates. We combined two independent unbiased estimates of US State-level coverages within a given year to obtain new estimates which are more precise than previously published estimates. We first calculated a model-based estimate for each State for 2001 using multiple years of NIS data. Next, we combined each model-based estimate with the corresponding, previously reported NIS estimate for 2001. Our resulting estimates of State-level immunization coverage had smaller standard errors than the previously published estimates. To make similar improvements in precision by increasing sample size would, depending on State, require an increase in sample size of 30% – 120%.