Introduction
Malaria remains a critical public health challenge in various parts of the world, with particular severity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Within this region, Ghana continues to be a hyperendemic country for the disease. A recent study, exploring the spatial dimensions of health outcomes in relation to sociodemographic determinants, offers insights into an integrative approach for better understanding and potentially addressing the epidemiological nuances of malaria. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the study’s findings on malaria incidence and its association with sociodemographic factors in Ghana, emphasizing the geographical aspects of its transmission and risk factors identified using excess risk maps (ERMs) and conditioned choropleth maps (CCMs).
Methodology
The study published in BMC Public Health on May 6, 2019 (DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6816-z), by Nyadanu et al., applied geo-visual techniques to analyze malaria incidence as a function of sociodemographic determinants between 2010 and 2014. The primary aim was to understand the spatial heterogeneity of the disease and the geographical correlation with various socioeconomic factors. Researchers computed and smoothed district-specific mean malaria incidences, and explored spatial distribution through global and local spatial autocorrelations. They assessed the association with sociodemographic risk factors and developed ERMs and CCMs to visually represent the significant associations.
Findings
The study found that malaria incidence in Ghana increased over time, with clusters predominantly identified in the northern regions and some in the middle parts of the country. Examination of sociodemographic factors revealed that district variations in malaria rates were explained by significant inequalities, including a negative association with non-religious affiliation. Seven sociodemographic determinants were identified, with the strongest positive spatial autocorrelation observed in urbanization-basic education correlation (p<0.01, r = +0.969).
The ERMs and CCMs were instrumental in pinpointing locations where lower or higher than expected rates correlated with specific risk factors. Notably, factors such as the employment-to-population ratio in rural areas, and basic education levels, could have cascade effects on reducing the expected malaria incidence in endemic areas.
Discussion
The geo-visual integration approach using ERMs and CCMs allowed for the identification of areas at an elevated risk of disease-risk factor co-location. This method provides a simpler way for public health stakeholders to comprehend complex epidemiological information and make informed decisions for intervention strategies. CCMs can show the spatial distribution of a single variable while ERMs overlay two variables, effectively demonstrating the level of risk beyond what might be expected under normal conditions.
Applications
The findings from this study highlight the need for targeted interventions at the district level. By focusing on identified sociodemographic determinants, public health authorities can strategize more effective measures for malaria control and mitigation. This approach can also serve as a model for other countries dealing with similar issues.
Conclusion
The integration of spatial epidemiological data using ERMs and CCMs provides a powerful tool for health practitioners and policymakers to visualize and address the interplay between malaria and sociodemographic determinants. With its capacity to simplify complex data and highlight significant associations spatially, the geo-visual approach can serve as an essential component in the fight against malaria in Ghana and similar environments.
Keywords
1. Malaria Incidence Ghana
2. Sociodemographic Determinants Health
3. Excess Risk Maps Malaria
4. Conditioned Choropleth Maps
5. Spatial Analysis Public Health
References
1. Nyadanu SD et al. (2019). BMC Public Health. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6816-z.
2. Waller LA, Gotway CA. (2004). Applied Spatial statistics for public health data.
3. Carr DB, White D, MacEachren AM. (2005). Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
4. Anselin L. (2003). GeoDa™ 0.9 User’s Guide.
5. Krefis AC et al. (2011). PLoS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017905.