Work was completed at these affiliations.
As a result of climate change, extreme precipitation events are expected to increase in frequency and intensity. Runoff from these extreme events poses threats to water quality and human health. We investigated the impact of extreme precipitation and beach closings on the risk of gastrointestinal illness (GI)-related hospital admissions among individuals 65 and older in 12 Great Lakes cities from 2000 to 2006. Poisson regression models were fit in each city, controlling for temperature and long-term time trends. City-specific estimates were combined to form an overall regional risk estimate. Approximately 40,000 GI-related hospital admissions and over 100 beach closure days were recorded from May through September during the study period. Extreme precipitation (≥90th percentile) occurring the previous day (lag 1) is significantly associated with beach closures in 8 of the 12 cities (
The concentration of bacterial indicators in recreational water, such as
The 1986 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recreational water quality criteria for freshwater beaches include a daily
Recreational water can be contaminated from both point and nonpoint sources [
Heavy precipitation and subsequent stormwater runoff can flush pathogens and other microorganisms directly into nearby surface water, resulting in increased concentrations of bacteria, and increased risk of waterborne disease [
Previous studies have also reported a delayed onset of diarrheal disease following heavy rainfall events [
Under predicted climatic changes, more extreme rain events are expected to occur, particularly in the Great Lakes region, which may increase the risk of poor recreational water quality [
While swimmers may be directly impacted by poor recreational water quality, elderly non-swimmers may be exposed to pathogens via drinking water as a result of increased turbidity following extreme events [
The U.S. Great Lakes region provides approximately 40 million people with water used for drinking, fishing, recreation, and industry [
This study focused on 12 cities within the Great Lakes region for which sufficient beach closure data were available (
Cities in the Great Lakes region included in this analysis, defined as the county or counties surrounding the Metropolitan Statistical Area.
| City | State | County |
|---|---|---|
| Buffalo | NY | Erie |
| Chicago | IL | Cook |
| Lake | ||
| McHenry | ||
| Will | ||
| Cleveland | OH | Cuyahoga |
| Lake | ||
| Lorain | ||
| Detroit | MI | Macomb |
| Oakland | ||
| Wayne | ||
| Erie | PA | Erie |
| Gary | IN | Lake |
| Grand Rapids | MI | Kent |
| Milwaukee | WI | Milwaukee |
| Minneapolis | MN | Ramsey |
| Rochester | NY | Monroe |
| Rockford | IL | Winnebago |
| Toledo | OH | Lucas |
Location of beaches in the Great Lakes region included in this analysis, cities correspond to the surrounding county or counties for which data was available.
Hospital admission (HA) records for individuals 65 years and older and enrolled in Medicare were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the 12 cities from 2000 to 2006. Approximately 98 percent of all people in this age range are enrolled in Medicare [
Based on previous research, cause of admission was defined as GI-related if the primary, secondary, or tertiary ICD-9 code was classified as: (i) a pathogen specific intestinal infectious disease (ICD 001-007; 120-129), (ii) other and ill-defined intestinal infectious disease (008–009), or (iii) diarrheal disease-related symptoms (276, 558.9, 787) [
Daily recreational water quality data were obtained from the county-level organizations responsible for water quality monitoring in each of the 12 cities. In some cases these data were publicly available, but in other instances the data were accessed via direct communication with Recreational Water Quality and Beach Program Managers. Data included daily concentration of
When more than one measure of bacterial concentration was reported for one beach on a single day, a daily average concentration was used. Because the number of beaches monitored on a daily basis varied by city and year, a binary variable was created to describe whether a recreational water quality advisory was administered, which allowed for standardization across cities. This variable took the value of 1 if any beach within the city was closed on a particular day and 0 if all beaches within the city were open. In Chicago and Rockford, IL water quality data were only available as a list of dates when beach closures occurred. Days when one or more beaches were closed within the city were coded as 1. All other weekdays, beaches were assumed to be open and were coded as 0. Data were not imputed for weekend days and were left as missing when no date was listed. Although this analysis modeled beach closures as a binary indicator variable, the underlying decision to close a beach was based on the actual bacterial concentration measured in the water.
Hourly meteorological data including precipitation, temperature, dew point, and relative humidity were downloaded from the first order weather station of the National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Observer Program [
Precipitation was categorized based on the city-specific summer time rainfall distribution. Categories were defined as: (1) Precipitation equal to 0 (reference category); (2) greater than 0, but less than 0.01 inches (0.25 mm); (3) greater than or equal to 0.01 inches (0.25 mm), but less than the 90th percentile and; (4) greater than or equal to the 90th percentile. Thus, the effects of no, trace, moderate, and extreme precipitation were evaluated. The 90th percentile was chosen as the cutoff for extreme precipitation based on previous research and the observable increase in risk of water contamination during extreme precipitation events [
Data sources corresponding to hospital admission, meteorological, and recreational water quality data.
| Data Type | Data Source |
|---|---|
|
| Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services |
|
| National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program |
| Cook; Lake; McHenry; Will; and Winnebago, IL | Illinois Department of Public Health: Environmental Health |
| Lake, IN | Indiana Department of Environmental Management |
| Kent; Macomb; Oakland; and Wayne, MI | Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Environment |
| Ramsey, MN | Ramsey County Public Works |
| Erie; and Monroe, NY | New York State Health Department |
| Cuyahoga; Lake; Lorain; and Lucas, OH | Ohio Department of Health |
| Erie, PA | Erie County Department of Health |
| Milwaukee; and Waukesha, WI | Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources |
The primary goal of this study was to estimate the association between extreme precipitation and beach closures, and subsequent risk of GI-related hospital admissions, while controlling for meteorological conditions. In cases, like this, where only a certain season is of interest (e.g., summer), it is common to use a discontinuous time-series to splice together the seasons of interest over the study period. This method forces the estimate at the end of the season of interest in one year to match the estimate at the beginning of the season in the following year, without regard to effects of the “off season” on the estimate. Therefore, a secondary goal of this study was to evaluate potential bias associated with using summer-only data in time-series analysis and introduce innovative methods to reduce such bias. In our study, Poisson regression models were fit under three scenarios to control for long-term time trends in the data. First, models were run without using a spline term; second, with a spline term estimated by the discontinuous summer-only time-series; and thirdly, using a two-stage Poisson regression approach. In the two-stage approach, the spline term was initially estimated using the entire hospital admission time-series. The estimated spline fragments corresponding to the seven summers were then added to the Poisson regression model as an offset.
City-specific statistics were summarized using scatterplots and histograms. In order to compare our data to previous research, which found precipitation during the previous 1–3 days to be a strong predictor of recreational water quality, a city-specific logistic regression was used to estimate the association between precipitation (PRCP) and beach closures (BC) over a 3-day lag period (Model 1) [
Because observed health effects may occur several days after exposure due to delayed onset of clinical symptoms and environmental transport, a 7-day lag period was chosen for this analysis to be consistent with the incubation period of most bacterial and viral waterborne pathogens [
As apparent temperature can influence pathogen replication, persistence, and transmission [
To control for long-term time trends in hospital admissions, a nonlinear smoothing term for time was included in the Poisson regression model (
The final stage of analysis was a two-stage Poisson regression model, in which the entire 7-year time-series of GI-related hospital admissions was fit using a penalized spline term (Model 4, Stage 1). The estimated spline fragments corresponding to the seven summers were then added to the full Poisson regression model as an offset. This model also explored lags and potential confounders (Model 4, Stage 2):
City-specific estimates were collapsed into an overall summary estimate for the region using a fixed-effect model. Results were pooled using the inverse-variance weighting estimator. If the null hypothesis was rejected (
Over the 7-year study period, approximately 40,000 GI-related hospital admissions were recorded among individuals over the age of 65 across 12 cities in the Great Lakes region (
Extreme precipitation above the 90th percentile, occurring on the previous day (lag 1), was a significant predictor (
In the instances where beach closures were positively associated with GI-related hospital admissions, lags 1, 2, 3, and 7 were significant. Risk ratios ranged from 1.30 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.68) in Rochester at lag 3 to 1.76 (95% CI: 1.13, 2.75) in Minneapolis at lag 1. As a sensitivity analysis, models were re-run with an indicator of cumulative exposure to extreme precipitation (7-day moving average); results were consistent. When the results were pooled across the 12 cities, the overall effect estimate was not significant (
Summary statistics for 12 Great Lakes cities during the swimming season (1 May–30 September) from 2000 to 2006.
| City | Population Over 65a (% of Population) | Mean Daily GI-Related Admissions (per 100,000) | Mean Daily Beach Closures (Total) | Median daily Total Precipitation (mm) (90th Percentile) | Mean daily Apparent Temperature °C (°F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buffalo, NY | 151,258 (16) | 1.48 (0.98) | 0.93 (292) | 0.00 (9.40) | 18.99 (66.19) |
| Chicago, IL | 747,777 (11) | 14.47 (1.94) | 0.61 (506) | 0.00 (9.63) | 20.39 (68.71) |
| Cleveland, OH | 284,788 (15) | 4.89 (1.72) | 1.47 (535) | 0.00 (9.63) | 20.22 (68.39) |
| Detroit, MI | 491,592 (12) | 7.35 (1.50) | 0.71 (342) | 0.00 (9.40) | 20.44 (68.80) |
| Erie, PA | 40,256 (14) | 0.42 (1.04) | 0.40 (103) | 0.00 (10.67) | 19.38 (66.89) |
| Gary, IN | 63,234 (13) | 0.95 (1.50) | 0.90 (293) | 0.00 (10.67) | 20.27 (68.49) |
| Grand Rapids, MI | 59,625 (10) | 0.69 (1.16) | 0.43 (15) | 0.00 (11.43) | 19.14 (66.46) |
| Milwaukee, WI | 121,685 (13) | 2.38 (1.96) | 0.90 (376) | 0.00 (9.40) | 19.06 (66.31) |
| Minneapolis, MN | 59,502 (12) | 1.95 (3.28) | 0.23 (17) | 0.00 (10.67) | 19.33 (67.79) |
| Rochester, NY | 95,779 (13) | 0.80 (0.84) | 0.40 (145) | 0.00 (9.65) | 19.29 (66.22) |
| Rockford, IL | 35,450 (13) | 0.51 (1.44) | 0.10 (75) | 0.00 (9.65) | 20.14 (68.26) |
| Toledo, OH | 59,441 (13) | 0.57 (0.96) | 0.44 (115) | 0.00 (9.65) | 20.44 (68.8) |
Note: a Population estimate based on the 2000 U.S. Census [
City-specific odds ratios (OR) with p-values evaluating the association between daily categorical precipitation a at lag 1 (1-day previous) and beach closures in 12 Great Lakes cities from 2000 to 2006.
| Precipitation Category | City-specific OR | City-specific OR | City-specific OR | City-specific OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 < prcp < 0.01 | 2.42 (0.14) | 1.69 (0.23) | 1.77 (0.30) | 1.28 (0.68) |
| 0.01 ≤ prcp < 90th percentile | 2.94 (<0.001) | 1.34 (0.14) | 1.65 (0.07) | 1.42 (0.13) |
| prcp ≥ 90th percentile | 16.93 (<0.001) | 1.20 (0.41) | 7.39 (0.00) | 4.02 (<0.001) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 < prcp < 0.01 | 0.00 (0.98) | 1.48 (0.70) | - | 0.93 (0.89) |
| 0.01 ≤ prcp < 90th percentile | 2.31 (0.09) | 1.53 (0.15) | 1.71 (0.54) | 1.41 (0.22) |
| prcp ≥ 90th percentile | 10.21 (<0.001) | 2.01 (0.05) | 0.57 (0.64) | 2.01 (0.04) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 < prcp < 0.01 | 2.00 (0.59) | 2.67 (0.03) | 0.00 (0.09) | 2.02 (0.29) |
| 0.01 ≤ prcp < 90th percentile | 1.33 (0.75) | 1.91 (0.03) | 0.51 (0.17) | 1.24 (0.55) |
| prcp ≥ 90th percentile | 1.60 (0.50) | 5.67 (<0.001) | 0.66 (0.40) | 9.07 (<0.001) |
Not: a Reference category is where precipitation is equal to 0.
City-specific risk ratios a (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the risk of GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly following beach closures over a 1-week lag using a two-stage spline structure in 12 Great Lakes cities 2000–2006.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.96 (0.79, 1.16) | 0.96 (0.91, 1.00) | 0.99 (0.90, 1.09) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.08) | 1.49 (0.90, 2.46) |
| lag 2 | 0.97 (0.79, 1.19) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 1.05 (0.95, 1.17) | 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) | 1.67 (1.02, 2.76) |
| lag 3 | 1.04 (0.85, 1.28) | 1.00 (0.95, 1.05) | 0.88 (0.80, 0.98) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) | 1.15 (0.69, 1.93) |
| lag 4 | 0.98 (0.81, 1.20) | 1.01 (0.96, 1.06) | 0.96 (0.86, 1.06) | 0.99 (0.92, 1.07) | 1.23 (0.70, 2.18) |
| lag 5 | 0.78 (0.63, 0.96) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 1.02 (0.92, 1.14) | 0.92 (0.86, 0.99) | 0.49 (0.22, 1.06) |
| lag 6 | 0.92 (0.75, 1.12) | 1.02 (0.98, 1.08) | 1.03 (0.93, 1.15) | 0.95 (0.88, 1.02) | 1.54 (0.89, 2.65) |
| lag 7 | 0.92 (0.75, 1.12) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.05) | 0.96 (0.87, 1.06) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.04) | 0.94 (0.52, 1.68) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.90 (0.71, 1.15) | 0.70 (0.22, 2.13) | 1.05 (0.89, 1.24) | 1.76 (1.13, 2.75) | 0.84 (0.64, 1.10) |
| lag 2 | 1.08 (0.85, 1.38) | 1.74 (0.74, 4.09) | 1.02 (0.87, 1.20) | 1.13 (0.72, 1.75) | 0.86 (0.65, 1.12) |
| lag 3 | 1.01 (0.80, 1.28) | 1.13 (0.51, 2.51) | 0.99 (0.84, 1.17) | 1.08 (0.68, 1.69) | 1.30 (1.00, 1.68) |
| lag 4 | 1.03 (0.81, 1.31) | 1.26 (0.50, 3.17) | 1.03 (0.88, 1.21) | 0.70 (0.40, 1.22) | 0.96 (0.73, 1.26) |
| lag 5 | 0.99 (0.78, 1.25) | 0.66 (0.17, 2.57) | 1.08 (0.92, 1.27) | 1.14 (0.69, 1.86) | 0.97 (0.74, 1.28) |
| lag 6 | 1.11 (0.87, 1.41) | 1.49 (0.49, 4.50) | 0.99 (0.84, 1.16) | 1.10 (0.73, 1.67) | 1.03 (0.79, 1.35) |
| lag 7 | 0.87 (0.69, 1.11) | 2.41 (0.75, 7.77) | 1.07 (0.91, 1.26) | 0.75 (0.51, 1.10) | 1.19 (0.92, 1.53) |
|
|
|
| |||
| lag 1 | 1.11 (0.67, 1.82) | 0.97 (0.68, 1.38) | 0.98 (0.95, 1.01) | ||
| lag 2 | 0.78 (0.42, 1.43) | 0.70 (0.47, 1.02) | 1.01 (0.98, 1.05) | ||
| lag 3 | 0.83 (0.46, 1.50) | 1.13 (0.77, 1.65) | 0.98 (0.95, 1.02) | ||
| lag 4 | 1.04 (0.62, 1.74) | 0.64 (0.43, 0.97) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.03) | ||
| lag 5 | 1.35 (0.85, 2.13) | 1.03 (0.71, 1.48) | 0.99 (0.95, 1.02) | ||
| lag 6 | 0.77 (0.42, 1.43) | 1.01 (0.71, 1.45) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.04) | ||
| lag 7 | 1.30 (0.81, 2.10) | 1.67 (1.22, 2.30) | 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) |
Note: a Two-stage Poisson regression adjusted for meteorological conditions, day of week, and long-term time trends.
Comparing the different spline structures, no significant differences were observed. In cities where a significant association was observed in at least one of the seven different lag models, that association was consistent across spline structures (
The discontinous, summer-only spline compared to the spline estimated using the entire 7-year time-series in the two-stage spline model, using Detroit, MI as an example.
In general, extreme precipitation, above the 90th percentile, at lag 1, was a significant predictor of beach closures in 8 of the 12 cities. However, no consistent association between beach closures and GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly was observed. In this study, novel methodology to control for long-term time trends using season-specific data was proposed and results using three different spline structures were compared. While no significant differences in the effect estimates were observed in this analysis, the two-stage Poisson model, which utilizes the full time-series to control for long-term time trends in the outcome variable, is recommended for future work focused on season-specific analyses.
The two-stage spline structure presented in Model 4 can be applied to a variety of studies where only one season is of interest. By comparing results from the two-stage spline model to results from a model with no spline, as well as a model with a spline estimated from the discontinuous, summer-only time-series, we addressed an important methodological question regarding the most appropriate way to conduct time-series analysis when exposure data is only available for a portion of the year. Results, in this case, did not differ markedly across the three different modeling approaches. One explanation may be that GI-related hospital admissions did not display significant variability between summer, the season of interest, and the rest of the year. Differences in effect estimates are more likely to be observed between the discontinuous time-series model and a two-stage time-series model when the health outcome varies across seasons. If hospital admissions had shown more variability across seasons, the two-stage spline structure would have minimized confounding by long-term time trends and reduced potential bias.
Although the results presented here do not reveal a consistent or significant association between beach closures and GI-related hospital admissions, previous research states that poor recreational water quality has the potential to adversely impact human health. Previous research confirms that precipitation is linked to water quality indicators such as
While Sampson
Results from our analysis suggest that precipitation should be modeled in a way that accommodates the skewed distribution and the nonlinear associations often observed between precipitation and daily hospital admissions. Modeling precipitation as a categorical variable, as we did, is a suitable approach.
One of the primary limitations of this analysis is related to data specificity; GI-related hospital admissions are dramatically underreported and the etiology is rarely identified [
Lastly, it is important to note that precipitation can be much localized; use of single city monitoring stations did not allow for spatially explicit analysis. However, a major strength of this analysis was its use of publicly available data across a wide geographic area to explore the impact of extreme precipitation on beach closures and subsequent risk of waterborne disease, which has implications for recreational water management at the local level.
This study was conducted to evaluate whether beach closure and Medicare data, both easily accessible, could be used as a proxy for evaluating risk of GI. The development of such a universal model would help beach managers and public health professionals assess risk across a wide geographic area and prioritize resources accordingly. Because the association between recreational water quality and hospital admissions was only being investigated in select cities in the Great Lakes region, conclusions may not be applicable to marine or estuarine recreational waters or other regions of the country where socio-demographic, meteorological, and hydrodynamic conditions may vary.
Future work in this area should promote the use of a consistent definition of extreme precipitation so that decision-makers can have a shared understanding of the risks associated with heavy precipitation events. Our results linking extreme precipitation to beach closures provide additional support for precipitation-based public health warning systems [
In a majority of the 12 Great Lakes cities, extreme precipitation (≥90th percentile) was significantly associated with beach closures. However, no consistent trend was observed between beach closures and GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly. Nonetheless, the risk of waterborne disease outbreaks must be considered in the context of a changing climate. In order to predict future health outcomes, it is critical to understand how current meteorological factors drive seasonal patterns of water quality and disease [
Kathleen Bush was supported by a scholarship from the University of Michigan School of Public Health Department of Environmental Health Sciences, a Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute (GESI) Doctoral Fellowship, and the Great Lakes Adaptation Assessment for Cities program at the University of Michigan, funded by GESI and Kresge Foundation. Carina Gronlund was supported by the National Institute on Aging Training Grant T32 AG027708 and by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grant R18-EH00348. The research was also supported by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR grant R83275201, NIEHS R-01 ES016932, and NSF DMS 1007494. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. We would like to thank Dan Brown, Joseph Eisenberg, and Howard Hu for insightful comments.
All authors contributed to the conception of this manuscript. Cheryl Fossani and Kathleen Bush prepared the data for analysis and drafted the original manuscript. Shi Li, Bhramar Mukherjee, Marie O’Neill, Carina Gronlund, and Kathleen Bush developed the analysis plan. Kathleen Bush conducted the analysis. Shi Li and Bhramar Mukherjee provided statistical and programming consultation and guidance on interpretation of results. All authors discussed the results and provided a critical review of the text prior to publication.
The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors. The authors declare that they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.
City-specific risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the risk of GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly following extreme precipitation over a 1-week lag using a two-stage spline structure in 12 Great Lakes cities 2000–2006.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.69 (0.38, 1.25) | 1.12 (1.00, 1.24) | 1.02 (0.83, 1.25) | 0.98 (0.78, 1.20) | 1.33 (0.38, 4.60) |
| lag 2 | 1.26 (0.80, 1.99) | 0.97 (0.86, 1.09) | 1.03 (0.84, 1.27) | 0.92 (0.73, 1.15) | 0.34 (0.05, 2.49) |
| lag 3 | 1.11 (0.67, 1.83) | 1.02 (0.90, 1.15) | 1.13 (0.93, 1.38) | 1.04 (0.83, 1.30) | 2.33 (0.94, 5.77) |
| lag 4 | 0.61 (0.33, 1.13) | 0.99 (0.88, 1.12) | 0.96 (0.77, 1.21) | 1.05 (0.83, 1.31) | 1.04 (0.30, 3.61) |
| lag 5 | 1.04 (0.62, 1.72) | 0.99 (0.88, 1.11) | 0.93 (0.74, 1.17) | 0.78 (0.61, 1.00) | 0.96 (0.22, 4.14) |
| lag 6 | 0.99 (0.59, 1.69) | 1.05 (0.94, 1.18) | 1.01 (0.82, 1.26) | 1.29 (1.06, 1.58) | 1.02 (0.23, 4.46) |
| lag 7 | 1.10 (0.68, 1.79) | 1.10 (0.98, 1.23) | 1.11 (0.91, 1.36) | 1.02 (0.81, 1.27) | 0.75 (0.11, 5.37) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 1.14 (0.42, 3.11) | 0.51 (0.13, 1.87) | 0.86 (0.55, 1.35) | 0.83 (0.27, 2.49) | 1.25 (0.77, 2.02) |
| lag 2 | 1.52 (0.64, 3.59) | 1.31 (0.53, 3.25) | 0.91 (0.59, 1.39) | 1.02 (0.41, 2.52) | 0.80 (0.45, 1.41) |
| lag 3 | 0.42 (0.09, 2.00) | 1.23 (0.55, 2.75) | 0.93 (0.61, 1.43) | 1.28 (0.60, 2.77) | 1.18 (0.72, 1.94) |
| lag 4 | 1.30 (0.55, 3.07) | 0.47 (0.14, 1.57) | 1.19 (0.83, 1.73) | 0.71 (0.23, 2.16) | 1.09 (0.65, 1.84) |
| lag 5 | 1.45 (0.62, 3.39) | 1.33 (0.44, 4.04) | 0.66 (0.41, 1.06) | 1.57 (0.67, 3.66) | 0.86 (0.48, 1.56) |
| lag 6 | 0.91 (0.34, 2.49) | 0.66 (0.18, 2.40) | 1.02 (0.69, 1.52) | 1.05 (0.45, 2.44) | 1.21 (0.75, 1.95) |
| lag 7 | 0.90 (0.30, 2.72) | 0.87 (0.23, 3.26) | 1.08 (0.74, 1.58) | 0.51 (0.20, 1.29) | 1.00 (0.59, 1.72) |
|
|
| ||||
| lag 1 | 1.50 (0.90, 2.53) | 0.71 (0.30, 1.69) | |||
| lag 2 | 0.79 (0.38, 1.61) | 0.86 (0.39, 1.88) | |||
| lag 3 | 1.20 (0.64, 2.24) | 0.68 (0.27, 1.70) | |||
| lag 4 | 1.02 (0.53, 1.96) | 0.73 (0.30, 1.82) | |||
| lag 5 | 0.66 (0.31, 1.43) | 0.98 (0.46, 2.11) | |||
| lag 6 | 0.97 (0.47, 2.00) | 1.73 (0.95, 3.15) | |||
| lag 7 | 1.44 (0.79, 2.63) | 1.69 (0.94, 3.02) |
City-specific risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the risk of GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly following beach closures over a 1-week lag using discontinuous time-series in 12 Great Lakes cities 2000–2006.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.94 (0.78, 1.14) | 0.96 (0.91, 1.01) | 1.02 (0.92, 1.12) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.08) | 1.35 (0.81, 2.25) |
| lag 2 | 0.96 (0.79, 1.18) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.08) | 1.08 (0.97, 1.19) | 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) | 1.49 (0.90, 2.49) |
| lag 3 | 1.04 (0.84, 1.27) | 0.99 (0.94, 1.05) | 0.89 (0.81, 0.99) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) | 1.09 (0.65, 1.84) |
| lag 4 | 0.96 (0.78, 1.17) | 1.01 (0.96, 1.07) | 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) | 1.00 (0.93, 1.07) | 1.24 (0.69, 2.20) |
| lag 5 | 0.76 (0.62, 0.93) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.08) | 1.04 (0.93, 1.16) | 0.92 (0.86, 0.99) | 0.48 (0.22, 1.05) |
| lag 6 | 0.89 (0.73, 1.09) | 1.03 (0.98, 1.08) | 1.06 (0.95, 1.17) | 0.95 (0.88, 1.02) | 1.58 (0.91, 2.74) |
| lag 7 | 0.91 (0.74, 1.11) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.06) | 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.04) | 0.87 (0.48, 1.58) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.95 (0.74, 1.22) | 0.62 (0.20, 1.93) | 1.02 (0.86, 1.20) | 1.84 (1.16, 2.91) | 0.82 (0.63, 1.08) |
| lag 2 | 1.16 (0.90, 1.49) | 1.89 (0.76, 4.68) | 1.01 (0.86, 1.19) | 1.09 (0.69, 1.71) | 0.84 (0.64, 1.11) |
| lag 3 | 1.09 (0.85, 1.39) | 1.11 (0.48, 2.60) | 0.99 (0.84, 1.17) | 0.96 (0.60, 1.55) | 1.28 (0.99, 1.65) |
| lag 4 | 1.13 (0.88, 1.46) | 1.37 (0.53, 3.58) | 1.05 (0.90, 1.23) | 0.61 (0.35, 1.05) | 0.94 (0.72, 1.24) |
| lag 5 | 1.06 (0.82, 1.38) | 1.48 (0.26, 8.57) | 1.08 (0.92, 1.27) | 1.10 (0.67, 1.81) | 0.96 (0.73, 1.27) |
| lag 6 | 1.22 (0.94, 1.57) | 1.35 (0.45, 4.05) | 1.00 (0.86, 1.18) | 1.07 (0.70, 1.65) | 1.02 (0.78, 1.34) |
| lag 7 | 0.90 (0.70, 1.15) | 2.29 (0.68, 7.76) | 1.07 (0.91, 1.26) | 0.77 (0.52, 1.12) | 1.17 (0.91, 1.52) |
|
|
| ||||
| lag 1 | 1.10 (0.67, 1.82) | 0.97 (0.68, 1.39) | |||
| lag 2 | 0.77 (0.42, 1.42) | 0.70 (0.48, 1.03) | |||
| lag 3 | 0.81 (0.44, 1.47) | 1.11 (0.76, 1.63) | |||
| lag 4 | 1.02 (0.61, 1.72) | 0.64 (0.42, 0.96) | |||
| lag 5 | 1.35 (0.84, 2.16) | 1.02 (0.71, 1.46) | |||
| lag 6 | 0.75 (0.40, 1.40) | 1.01 (0.71, 1.45) | |||
| lag 7 | 1.29 (0.79, 2.09) | 1.64 (1.19, 2.25) |