Mortality rates and self reported health: database analysis by English local authority area
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
1 South East Regional Public Health Group, Government Office for the South East, Bridge House, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4GA, 2 Unit of Health-Care Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF
Correspondence to: R G E Kyffin robert.kyffin@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Introduction
Mortality rates are highly correlated with the two census measures of self reported ill health at the level of local authority area. We cannot discount the possibility that, as measures of population health, mortality and self reported rates are both flawed in the same direction and to a similar extent. In other circumstances—for example, if comparing different cultures or for different time periods—the close relationship that we found may not hold.
What is already known on this topic
Mortality rates are commonly used as measures of population health, but this is often criticised as death is an extreme measure of ill health
Rates of self reported ill health also tend to be regarded as flawed because of their subjectivity
What this study adds
Comparing local authority areas in England, mortality rates are highly correlated with the two census measures of self reported ill health
We also noted the degree of scatter in the correlation: some local authorities with comparable mortality rates have quite different rates of self reported ill health and vice versa. If measures of either mortality or self reported ill health are used alone as weighting factors to determine allocation of resources to different areas, comparable levels of support could be received by areas with dissimilar need for services. In local authorities that have apparently large differences between their ranking on mortality and on self reported ill health, it may be worth exploring reasons for the difference.
For England as a whole, however, despite conceptual concerns about using either mortality or self reported ill health to measure the health status of different populations, there is a strong correlation between the two and each generally gives a similar profile.
This article was posted on bmj.com on 24 September 2004: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.38238.508021.F7
Table A on bmj.com gives the correlation variables; the full results and details of excluded local authorities are on bmj.com
Contributors: MJG proposed the study and wrote the first draft. RGEK analysed the data. All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to further drafts. RGEK is guarantor.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: Not needed.
References
Department of Health. Compendium of clinical and health indicators 2002. London: DoH, 2003.
Office for National Statistics. 2001 census of population. London: ONS, 2003. www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 (accessed 10 Sep 2004).(Robert G E Kyffin, public)
Correspondence to: R G E Kyffin robert.kyffin@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Introduction
Mortality rates are highly correlated with the two census measures of self reported ill health at the level of local authority area. We cannot discount the possibility that, as measures of population health, mortality and self reported rates are both flawed in the same direction and to a similar extent. In other circumstances—for example, if comparing different cultures or for different time periods—the close relationship that we found may not hold.
What is already known on this topic
Mortality rates are commonly used as measures of population health, but this is often criticised as death is an extreme measure of ill health
Rates of self reported ill health also tend to be regarded as flawed because of their subjectivity
What this study adds
Comparing local authority areas in England, mortality rates are highly correlated with the two census measures of self reported ill health
We also noted the degree of scatter in the correlation: some local authorities with comparable mortality rates have quite different rates of self reported ill health and vice versa. If measures of either mortality or self reported ill health are used alone as weighting factors to determine allocation of resources to different areas, comparable levels of support could be received by areas with dissimilar need for services. In local authorities that have apparently large differences between their ranking on mortality and on self reported ill health, it may be worth exploring reasons for the difference.
For England as a whole, however, despite conceptual concerns about using either mortality or self reported ill health to measure the health status of different populations, there is a strong correlation between the two and each generally gives a similar profile.
This article was posted on bmj.com on 24 September 2004: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.38238.508021.F7
Table A on bmj.com gives the correlation variables; the full results and details of excluded local authorities are on bmj.com
Contributors: MJG proposed the study and wrote the first draft. RGEK analysed the data. All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to further drafts. RGEK is guarantor.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: Not needed.
References
Department of Health. Compendium of clinical and health indicators 2002. London: DoH, 2003.
Office for National Statistics. 2001 census of population. London: ONS, 2003. www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 (accessed 10 Sep 2004).(Robert G E Kyffin, public)