The analysis of small area disease incidence has now developed to a degree
where many methods have been proposed. However, there are few studies of th
e relative merits of the methods available. While many Bayesian models have
been examined with respect to prior sensitivity, it is clear that wider co
mparisons of methods are largely missing from the literature. In this paper
we present some preliminary results concerning the goodness-of-fit of a va
riety of disease mapping methods to simulated data for disease incidence de
rived from a range of models. These simulated models cover simple risk grad
ients to more complex true risk structures, including spatial correlation.
The main general results presented here show that the gamma-Poisson exchang
eable model and the Besag, York and Mollie (BYM) model are most robust acro
ss a range of diverse models. Mixture models are less robust. Non-parametri
c smoothing methods perform badly in general. Linear Bayes methods display
behaviour similar to that of the gamma-Poisson methods. Copyright (C) 2000
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.