Paul Contoyannis, Jeremiah Hurley, Marjan Walli-Attaei
{"title":"When the technical is also normative: a critical assessment of measuring health inequalities using the concentration index-based indices.","authors":"Paul Contoyannis, Jeremiah Hurley, Marjan Walli-Attaei","doi":"10.1186/s12963-022-00299-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concentration index-based measures are one of the most popular tools for estimating socioeconomic-status-related health inequalities. In recent years, several variants of the concentration index have been developed that are designed to correct for deficiencies of the standard concentration index and which are increasingly being used. These variants, which include the Wagstaff index and the Erreygers index, have important technical and normative differences.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>In this study, we provide a non-technical review and critical assessment of these indices. We (i) discuss the difficulties that arise when measurement tools intended for income are applied in a health context, (ii) describe and illustrate the interrelationship between the technical and normative properties of these indices, (iii) discuss challenges that arise when determining whether index estimates are large or of policy significance, and (iv) evaluate the alignment of research practice with the properties of the indices used. Issues discussed in parts (i) and (ii) include the different conceptions of inequality that underpin the indices, the types of changes to a distribution which leave inequality unchanged and the importance of the measurement scale and range of the outcome variable. These concepts are illustrated using hypothetical examples. For parts (iii) and (iv), we reviewed 44 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2017 and find that researchers often fail to provide meaningful interpretations of the index estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We propose a series of questions to facilitate further sensitivity analyses and provide a better understanding of the index estimates. We also provide a guide for researchers and policy analysts to facilitate the critical assessment of studies using these indices, while helping applied researchers to choose inequality measures that have the normative properties they seek.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9713974/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-022-00299-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: Concentration index-based measures are one of the most popular tools for estimating socioeconomic-status-related health inequalities. In recent years, several variants of the concentration index have been developed that are designed to correct for deficiencies of the standard concentration index and which are increasingly being used. These variants, which include the Wagstaff index and the Erreygers index, have important technical and normative differences.
Main body: In this study, we provide a non-technical review and critical assessment of these indices. We (i) discuss the difficulties that arise when measurement tools intended for income are applied in a health context, (ii) describe and illustrate the interrelationship between the technical and normative properties of these indices, (iii) discuss challenges that arise when determining whether index estimates are large or of policy significance, and (iv) evaluate the alignment of research practice with the properties of the indices used. Issues discussed in parts (i) and (ii) include the different conceptions of inequality that underpin the indices, the types of changes to a distribution which leave inequality unchanged and the importance of the measurement scale and range of the outcome variable. These concepts are illustrated using hypothetical examples. For parts (iii) and (iv), we reviewed 44 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2017 and find that researchers often fail to provide meaningful interpretations of the index estimates.
Conclusion: We propose a series of questions to facilitate further sensitivity analyses and provide a better understanding of the index estimates. We also provide a guide for researchers and policy analysts to facilitate the critical assessment of studies using these indices, while helping applied researchers to choose inequality measures that have the normative properties they seek.
期刊介绍：
Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
