Comparing Methods for Measuring Socioeconomic Deprivation in General Practices
Author Information
Author(s): Mark Strong, Ravi Maheswaran, Tim Pearson
Primary Institution: The University of Sheffield
Hypothesis
How valid is the assumption that practice postcode deprivation scores accurately reflect the socioeconomic status of the entire practice population?
Conclusion
Practice postcode linked IMD scores provide a valid proxy for a population weighted measure in the absence of patient level data, but may underestimate the strength of association between mortality and deprivation.
Supporting Evidence
- Population weighted deprivation scores correlated with practice postcode based scores.
- All cause mortality aged 1 to 75 correlated with deprivation.
- The study used three different methods to calculate deprivation scores.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well using a practice's postcode can show how deprived the patients are. It found that while it's a quick way to measure, it might not always be accurate.
Methodology
The study calculated three measures of practice level deprivation and examined their correlation with practice level mortality using Pearson correlation coefficients.
Potential Biases
The ecological fallacy may occur, where group-level associations do not apply to individuals within the group.
Limitations
The study was limited to 38 practices in one area, which may not represent other regions in the UK.
Participant Demographics
The study focused on registered patients in 38 general practices in Rotherham, UK.
Statistical Information
Confidence Interval
95% CI 0.54 to 0.85
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website