Skip to main content

Table 2 Negative binomial spatial regression analyses of incident Tuberculosis case rates

From: Determinants of tuberculosis transmission and treatment abandonment in Fortaleza, Brazil

Variable/Indicator Null model Null spatial model Bivariate models Multivariable model
Log Population Densitya    0.95 [0.85–1.06]   
Log Mean Monthly Incomea    0.66 [0.57–0.77]   
Literacy rate    0.40 [0.22–0.72] 0.59 [0.44–0.80]
Mean household size    1.94 [1.25–3.03]   
Electricity connectivity    0.05 [0.01–0.17]   
Water supply    0.92 [0.80–1.07]   
Garbage collection    0.65 [0.50–0.85]   
Sewerage coverage    1.00 [0.97–1.04] 1.05 [1.02–1.08]
AIDS rateb    1.01 [0.93–1.10]   
Homicide rateb    1.16 [1.07–1.25] 1.08 [1.01–1.16]
Proportion of population white    0.87 [0.80–0.94]   
Proportion of population black    1.20 [1.12–1.30] 1.12 [1.03–1.21]
Proportion of population yellow    1.04 [0.96–1.12]   
Proportion of population brown    1.13 [1.04–1.23]   
Proportion of population indigenous    1.05 [0.97–1.13]   
District I    - -   
District II    0.78 [0.51–1.18]   
District III    0.81 [0.58–1.13]   
District IV    0.72 [0.50–1.08]   
District V    0.72 [0.48–1.11]   
District VI    0.77 [0.51–1.24]   
Deviance Information Criterion 1137.3 1109.5    1065.5  
Spatial variance   0.117    0.031  
Non-spatial variance 0.025 0.015    0.012  
Spatial variance ratio   0.88    0.73  
Global Moran’s I 0.33 0.11    0.11  
Global Moran’s I p-value 0.00 0.03    0.03  
  1. Values are incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals associated with a 10 percentage point change in the value of each covariate, with the exceptions of log values (a: one log change), incidence rates (b: one standard deviation change) or indicators for District (difference relative to District I). Model diagnostics not shown for the 16 bivariate models; bivariate model for District contained five indicator variables