Table 4 |
|||||||||||||
|
Descriptive statistics and results of variance ratio (Fmax) test for shigella incidence under various neighborhoods, Nha Trang, Vietnam, 1999–2001. (n = 13565) |
|||||||||||||
| r † |
Population size |
Incidence Rate/10000 Population |
Upper Fmax Test |
Lower Fmax Test |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Min |
Max |
Mean |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Variance |
Fmax1 |
DF1 * |
CV1 ** |
Fmax2 |
DF2 * |
CV2 ** |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| 100 |
3 |
5692 |
1015 |
.00 |
333.30 |
6.041 |
197.436 |
25.397 |
20 |
1.571 |
1.000 |
1 |
3.842 |
| 200 |
3 |
17440 |
3223 |
.00 |
333.30 |
6.155 |
74.927 |
9.638 |
19 |
1.587 |
2.635 |
2 |
2.996 |
| 300 |
3 |
25689 |
6026 |
.00 |
57.14 |
6.112 |
38.808 |
4.992 |
18 |
1.605 |
5.088 |
3 |
2.606 |
| 400 |
10 |
34531 |
9388 |
.00 |
41.67 |
6.116 |
28.304 |
3.641 |
17 |
1.624 |
6.976 |
4 |
2.373 |
| 500 |
30 |
47539 |
13112 |
.00 |
57.47 |
6.102 |
22.808 |
2.934 |
16 |
1.644 |
8.656 |
5 |
2.215 |
| 600 |
33 |
61692 |
17105 |
.00 |
34.36 |
6.121 |
18.871 |
2.427 |
15 |
1.667 |
10.462 |
6 |
2.099 |
| 700 |
33 |
73490 |
21480 |
.00 |
35.46 |
6.129 |
16.566 |
2.131 |
14 |
1.692 |
11.918 |
7 |
2.010 |
| 800 |
87 |
88015 |
26126 |
.00 |
27.47 |
6.140 |
14.514 |
1.867 |
13 |
1.721 |
13.603 |
8 |
1.939 |
| 900 |
87 |
102106 |
30938 |
.00 |
22.87 |
6.148 |
13.374 |
1.720 |
12 |
1.753 |
14.763 |
9 |
1.881 |
| 1000 |
87 |
111244 |
35834 |
.00 |
31.15 |
6.158 |
12.651 |
1.627 |
11 |
1.789 |
15.606 |
10 |
1.831 |
| 1100 |
87 |
121667 |
40711 |
.00 |
19.67 |
6.137 |
11.774 |
1.515 |
10 |
1.831 |
16.769 |
11 |
1.789 |
| 1200 |
150 |
134222 |
45547 |
.00 |
18.28 |
6.116 |
11.057 |
1.422 |
9 |
1.881 |
17.856 |
12 |
1.753 |
| 1300 |
425 |
146883 |
50410 |
.00 |
17.64 |
6.119 |
10.536 |
1.355 |
8 |
1.939 |
18.739 |
13 |
1.721 |
| 1400 |
628 |
152901 |
55270 |
.00 |
16.40 |
6.135 |
10.079 |
1.297 |
7 |
2.010 |
19.589 |
14 |
1.692 |
| 1500 |
628 |
156963 |
60090 |
1.21 |
15.92 |
6.135 |
9.588 |
1.233 |
6 |
2.099 |
20.592 |
15 |
1.667 |
| 1600 |
628 |
161121 |
64829 |
1.77 |
15.92 |
6.123 |
9.104 |
1.171 |
5 |
2.215 |
21.687 |
16 |
1.644 |
| 1700 |
628 |
165020 |
69457 |
1.21 |
15.92 |
6.129 |
8.751 |
1.126 |
4 |
2.373 |
22.562 |
17 |
1.624 |
| 1800 |
628 |
170190 |
74078 |
2.73 |
15.92 |
6.135 |
8.411 |
1.082 |
3 |
2.606 |
23.474 |
18 |
1.605 |
| 1900 |
628 |
177965 |
78890 |
2.68 |
15.92 |
6.153 |
8.099 |
1.042 |
2 |
2.996 |
24.378 |
19 |
1.587 |
| 2000 |
628 |
182551 |
83821 |
2.98 |
15.92 |
6.171 |
7.774 |
1.000 |
1 |
3.842 |
25.397 |
20 |
1.571 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
† r = size of neighborhood in meter radius * DF = degrees of freedom **CV1 and CV2 = critical values at 95% confidence level for Upper Fmax and Lower Fmax respectively Bold figures in Fmax1 and Fmax2 are the upper and lower limit of optimal neighborhoods, and the bold figure in "r" column is the choice of optimal neighborhood size. |
|||||||||||||
|
Ali et al. International Journal of Health Geographics 2005 4:12 doi:10.1186/1476-072X-4-12 |
|||||||||||||
