Methodological issues in measuring health disparities.

Kenneth Keppel, Elsie Pamuk, John Lynch, Olivia Carter-Pokras, Kim Insun, Vickie Mays, Jeffrey Pearcy, Victor Schoenbach, Joel S Weissman
{"title":"Methodological issues in measuring health disparities.","authors":"Kenneth Keppel, Elsie Pamuk, John Lynch, Olivia Carter-Pokras, Kim Insun, Vickie Mays, Jeffrey Pearcy, Victor Schoenbach, Joel S Weissman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This report discusses six issues that affect the measurement of disparities in health between groups in a population: Selecting a reference point from which to measure disparity. Measuring disparity in absolute or in relative terms. Measuring in terms of favorable or adverse events. Measuring in pair-wise or in summary fashion. Choosing whether to weight groups according to group size. Deciding whether to consider any inherent ordering of the groups. These issues represent choices that are made when disparities are measured.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Examples are used to highlight how these choices affect specific measures of disparity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>These choices can affect the size and direction of disparities measured at a point in time and conclusions about the size and direction of changes in disparity over time. Eleven guidelines for measuring disparities are presented.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Choices concerning the measurement of disparity should be made deliberately, recognizing that each choice will affect the results. When results are presented, the choices on which the measurements are based should be described clearly and justified appropriately.</p>","PeriodicalId":23577,"journal":{"name":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","volume":" 141","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681823/pdf/nihms312672.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This report discusses six issues that affect the measurement of disparities in health between groups in a population: Selecting a reference point from which to measure disparity. Measuring disparity in absolute or in relative terms. Measuring in terms of favorable or adverse events. Measuring in pair-wise or in summary fashion. Choosing whether to weight groups according to group size. Deciding whether to consider any inherent ordering of the groups. These issues represent choices that are made when disparities are measured.

Methods: Examples are used to highlight how these choices affect specific measures of disparity.

Results: These choices can affect the size and direction of disparities measured at a point in time and conclusions about the size and direction of changes in disparity over time. Eleven guidelines for measuring disparities are presented.

Conclusions: Choices concerning the measurement of disparity should be made deliberately, recognizing that each choice will affect the results. When results are presented, the choices on which the measurements are based should be described clearly and justified appropriately.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量健康差异的方法问题。
目标:本报告讨论了影响衡量人口中不同群体间健康差距的六个问题:选择衡量差距的参照点。以绝对值或相对值衡量差异。以有利或不利事件来衡量。成对测量或汇总测量。选择是否根据群体大小对群体进行加权。决定是否考虑组别的固有排序。这些问题代表了在衡量差异时所做出的选择:方法:举例说明这些选择如何影响具体的差异测量结果:结果:这些选择会影响某一时点测量的差异大小和方向,以及对差异随时间变化的大小和方向的结论。本文提出了衡量差异的 11 项指导原则:在测量差异时,应有意识地做出选择,认识到每个选择都会影响结果。在提交结果时,应清楚说明测量所依据的选择,并适当说明理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory. Studies also include comparison of U.S. methodology with those of other countries.
期刊最新文献
Calibration Weighting Methods for the National Center for Health Statistics Research and Development Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias and Survey Location Variability in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018: Sample Design and Estimation Procedures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1