ASU Scholarship Showcase

Background: Multiple methods are employed for modeling adaptation when projecting the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. The sensitivity of impacts to each is unknown because they have never been systematically compared. In addition, little is known about the relative sensitivity of impacts to “adaptation uncertainty” (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion of adaptation modeling) relative to using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios.

Objectives: This study had three aims: a) Compare the range in projected impacts that arises from using different adaptation modeling methods; b) compare the range in impacts that arises from adaptation uncertainty with ranges from using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios; c) recommend modeling method(s) to use in future impact assessments.

Methods: We estimated impacts for 2070–2099 for 14 European cities, applying six different methods for modeling adaptation; we also estimated impacts with five climate models run under two emissions scenarios to explore the relative effects of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.

Results: The range of the difference (percent) in impacts between including and excluding adaptation, irrespective of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty, can be as low as 28% with one method and up to 103% with another (mean across 14 cities). In 13 of 14 cities, the ranges in projected impacts due to adaptation uncertainty are larger than those associated with climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.

Conclusions: Researchers should carefully consider how to model adaptation because it is a source of uncertainty that can be greater than the uncertainty in emissions and climate modeling. We recommend absolute threshold shifts and reductions in slope.

Background: Extreme heat is a leading weather-related cause of illness and death in many locations across the globe, including subtropical Australia. The possibility of increasingly frequent and severe heat waves warrants continued efforts to reduce this health burden, which could be accomplished by targeting intervention measures toward the most vulnerable communities.

Objectives: We sought to quantify spatial variability in heat-related morbidity in Brisbane, Australia, to highlight regions of the city with the greatest risk. We also aimed to find area-level social and environmental determinants of high risk within Brisbane.

Methods: We used a series of hierarchical Bayesian models to examine city-wide and intracity associations between temperature and morbidity using a 2007–2011 time series of geographically referenced hospital admissions data. The models accounted for long-term time trends, seasonality, and day of week and holiday effects.

Results: On average, a 10°C increase in daily maximum temperature during the summer was associated with a 7.2% increase in hospital admissions (95% CI: 4.7, 9.8%) on the following day. Positive statistically significant relationships between admissions and temperature were found for 16 of the city’s 158 areas; negative relationships were found for 5 areas. High-risk areas were associated with a lack of high income earners and higher population density.

Conclusions: Geographically targeted public health strategies for extreme heat may be effective in Brisbane, because morbidity risk was found to be spatially variable. Emergency responders, health officials, and city planners could focus on short- and long-term intervention measures that reach communities in the city with lower incomes and higher population densities, including reduction of urban heat island effects.

Objective: Survival time is an important type of outcome variable in treatment research. Currently, limited guidance is available regarding performing mediation analyses with survival outcomes, which generally do not have normally distributed errors, and contain unobserved (censored) events. We present considerations for choosing an approach, using a comparison of semi-parametric proportional hazards (PH) and fully parametric accelerated failure time (AFT) approaches for illustration.

Method: We compare PH and AFT models and procedures in their integration into mediation models and review their ability to produce coefficients that estimate causal effects. Using simulation studies modeling Weibull-distributed survival times, we compare statistical properties of mediation analyses incorporating PH and AFT approaches (employing SAS procedures PHREG and LIFEREG, respectively) under varied data conditions, some including censoring. A simulated data set illustrates the findings.

Results: AFT models integrate more easily than PH models into mediation models. Furthermore, mediation analyses incorporating LIFEREG produce coefficients that can estimate causal effects, and demonstrate superior statistical properties. Censoring introduces bias in the coefficient estimate representing the treatment effect on outcome—underestimation in LIFEREG, and overestimation in PHREG. With LIFEREG, this bias can be addressed using an alternative estimate obtained from combining other coefficients, whereas this is not possible with PHREG.

Conclusions: When Weibull assumptions are not violated, there are compelling advantages to using LIFEREG over PHREG for mediation analyses involving survival-time outcomes. Irrespective of the procedures used, the interpretation of coefficients, effects of censoring on coefficient estimates, and statistical properties should be taken into account when reporting results.

This randomized prospective trial aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a team-based worksite health and safety intervention for law enforcement personnel. Four-hundred and eight subjects were enrolled and half were randomized to meet for weekly, peer-led sessions delivered from a scripted team-based health and safety curriculum. Curriculum addressed: exercise, nutrition, stress, sleep, body weight, injury, and other unhealthy lifestyle behaviors such as smoking and heavy alcohol use. Health and safety questionnaires administered before and after the intervention found significant improvements for increased fruit and vegetable consumption, overall healthy eating, increased sleep quantity and sleep quality, and reduced personal stress.

Although previous research has studied power in mediation models, the extent to which the inclusion of a mediator will increase power has not been investigated. To address this deficit, in a first study we compared the analytical power values of the mediated effect and the total effect in a single-mediator model, to identify the situations in which the inclusion of one mediator increased statistical power. The results from this first study indicated that including a mediator increased statistical power in small samples with large coefficients and in large samples with small coefficients, and when coefficients were nonzero and equal across models. Next, we identified conditions under which power was greater for the test of the total mediated effect than for the test of the total effect in the parallel two-mediator model. These results indicated that including two mediators increased power in small samples with large coefficients and in large samples with small coefficients, the same pattern of results that had been found in the first study. Finally, we assessed the analytical power for a sequential (three-path) two-mediator model and compared the power to detect the three-path mediated effect to the power to detect both the test of the total effect and the test of the mediated effect for the single-mediator model. The results indicated that the three-path mediated effect had more power than the mediated effect from the single-mediator model and the test of the total effect. Practical implications of these results for researchers are then discussed.