Identifying Material Disadvantage in Primary Care
Author Information
Author(s): Laurie E Davies, David R Sinclair, Andew Kingston, Gemma Frances Spiers, Barbara Hanratty
Primary Institution: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Unit in Older People and Frailty/Healthy Ageing, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University
Hypothesis
Can a measure of material disadvantage be constructed from UK primary care electronic health records?
Conclusion
Current primary care databases lack a useful measure of individual-level material disadvantage, which is a significant health determinant.
Supporting Evidence
- Only 6.1% of patients were classified as disadvantaged using the new measure, compared to 42.2% in the most deprived IMD quintiles.
- The study identified 491 codes related to material disadvantage.
- Current coding practices in primary care do not adequately capture material disadvantage.
Takeaway
This study looked at whether doctors can find out if their patients are struggling financially using their health records. They found that the current system doesn't do a good job of showing who is really in need.
Methodology
The study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to identify codes indicating material disadvantage and compared these with the English Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Potential Biases
There may be variation in GPs' interest in recording patients' social circumstances, potentially leading to underreporting.
Limitations
The study may have missed some codes indicating disadvantage due to the lack of standardized coding in primary care.
Participant Demographics
Participants were aged 18-90 and included 30,897,729 patients with complete data linked to the 2019 IMD.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website