Comparing Health Data Sources in England and Scotland
Author Information
Author(s): Gary McLean, Bruce Guthrie, Graham Watt, Mark Gabbay, Catherine A O'Donnell
Primary Institution: University of Glasgow
Hypothesis
Does the level at which socio-economic and health data are linked impact the association between these variables and disease prevalence and quality of care?
Conclusion
Using practice postcode data under-estimated the relationship between deprivation and ill health compared to using practice population data.
Supporting Evidence
- Data assigned to practice postcode underestimated deprivation for the least deprived deciles.
- Using practice population assigned deprivation increased differences in prevalence rates across clinical domains.
- The study found significant differences in QOF indicators when comparing practice postcode and practice population data.
Takeaway
This study shows that using the wrong type of data can make it look like health problems are less related to poverty than they really are.
Methodology
The study compared QOF achievement and prevalence data for practices in England and Scotland, analyzing differences based on practice postcode and practice population data.
Potential Biases
Potential ecological fallacy due to using aggregated data rather than individual-level data.
Limitations
The study used aggregated data, which may not accurately reflect individual-level associations.
Participant Demographics
Data from 8167 English practices and 989 Scottish practices.
Statistical Information
P-Value
<0.001
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website