Spatial analysis of risk factors for transmission of the Barmah Forest virus in Queensland, Australia

Submitted: 15 December 2014
Accepted: 15 December 2014
Published: 1 November 2013
Abstract Views: 1624
PDF: 761
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Barmah Forest virus (BFV) disease is the second most common mosquito-borne disease in Australia but few data are available on the risk factors. We assessed the impact of spatial climatic, socioeconomic and ecological factors on the transmission of BFV disease in Queensland, Australia, using spatial regression. All our analyses indicate that spatial lag models provide a superior fit to the data compared to spatial error and ordinary least square models. The residuals of the spatial lag models were found to be uncorrelated, indicating that the models adequately account for spatial and temporal autocorrelation. Our results revealed that minimum temperature, distance from coast and low tide were negatively and rainfall was positively associated with BFV disease in coastal areas, whereas minimum temperature and high tide were negatively and rainfall was positively associated with BFV disease (all P-value <0.05). The study demonstrates that BFV disease is more densely distributed in coastal areas and is influenced by climatic and ecological factors. The spatial analytical approach used in this study may have ramifications in the planning and implementation of BFV disease prevention and control programmes.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Naish, S., Mengersen, K., & Tong, S. (2013). Spatial analysis of risk factors for transmission of the Barmah Forest virus in Queensland, Australia. Geospatial Health, 8(1), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2013.74