Back to all available

Geographical disparities in intentional self-harm hospitalization risks in Florida: A retrospective ecological study

epidemiology
public-health

Abstract

Background: Over the last decade, intentional self-harm hospitalization risks have increased in the United States (US). Although there is evidence of geographic disparities in intentional self-harm hospitalization risks, with some areas having significantly higher risks, little is known about these disparities in Florida. Identifying these disparities is useful for guiding prevention programs and tailoring efforts to mitigate the problem. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate geographic disparities of intentional self-harm hospitalization risks in Florida.

Methods: Retrospective county-level intentional self-harm hospitalization data for the years 2016-2023 were obtained from Florida Health Charts, a publicly available data dashboard maintained by the Florida Department of Health. County-level age-standardized and spatial empirical Bayesian (SEB) smoothed risks were calculated for four time periods: 2016-2017, 2018-2019, 2020-2021, and 2022-2023. SSignificantlyhigh-risk clusters were identified using Tango's flexible spatial scan statistics. TTwo-sampletests of proportions were used to compare proportions of counties and populations in high-risk clusters between rural and urban areas.

Results: A total of 66,308 intentional self-harm hospitalizations were reported during the study period. Statewide SEB smoothed risks varied geographically, ranging from 25.3 to 1,683.1 hospitalizations per 100,000 persons. The highest risks tended to occur in the northwest, northeast, central, and southwest Florida. A total of 4 statistically significant high-risk clusters were identified in 2016-2017 (relative risks (RR) = 1.44-15.85), 6 in 2018-2019 (RR= 1.22-12.79), 6 in 2020-2021 (RR = 1.21-7.25), and 8 in 2022-2023 (RR = 1.20-3.69). The cluster with the highest risks was observed in a single rural northeastern county (Union). Additional high-risk clusters were observed in predominantly urban counties. The proportion of Florida counties included in significant high-risk clusters ranged from 22.4% in 2016-2017 to 38.8% in 2022-2023. Urban counties were significantly more likely than rural counties to be part of high-risk clusters in 2016-2017 (p=0.002) and 2020-2021 (p=0.019), but not in 2018-2019 (p=0.11) or 2022-2023 (p=0.477). The highest proportion of the population in high-risk counties alternated between urban and rural areas, with significantly (p < 0.0001) higher urban proportions in 2016-2017 and 2020-2021, and significantly (p < 0.0001) higher rural proportions in 2018-2019 and 2022-2023.

Conclusion: Geographic disparities in intentional self-harm hospitalization risks exist in Florida, with high-risk spikes observed in rural counties and widespread risks in urban counties. Study findings are useful for guiding targeted intentional self-harm prevention strategies and needs-based resource allocation geared at reducing/eliminating disparities and improving population health for all.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].