Cargando…

Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities

Methods for calculating health indicators profoundly influence understanding of and action on population health and inequities. Age-standardization can be useful and is commonly applied to account for differences in age structures when comparing health indicators across groups. Age-standardized rate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thurber, Katherine A, Thandrayen, Joanne, Maddox, Raglan, Barrett, Eden M, Walker, Jennie, Priest, Naomi, Korda, Rosemary J, Banks, Emily, Williams, David R, Lovett, Raymond
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab132
_version_ 1784653749720973312
author Thurber, Katherine A
Thandrayen, Joanne
Maddox, Raglan
Barrett, Eden M
Walker, Jennie
Priest, Naomi
Korda, Rosemary J
Banks, Emily
Williams, David R
Lovett, Raymond
author_facet Thurber, Katherine A
Thandrayen, Joanne
Maddox, Raglan
Barrett, Eden M
Walker, Jennie
Priest, Naomi
Korda, Rosemary J
Banks, Emily
Williams, David R
Lovett, Raymond
author_sort Thurber, Katherine A
collection PubMed
description Methods for calculating health indicators profoundly influence understanding of and action on population health and inequities. Age-standardization can be useful and is commonly applied to account for differences in age structures when comparing health indicators across groups. Age-standardized rates have well-acknowledged limitations, including that they are relative indices for comparison, and not accurate measures of actual rates where the age structures of groups diverge. This paper explores these limitations, and demonstrates alternative approaches through a case study quantifying mortality rates within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) population of Australia and inequities compared with the non-Indigenous population, over 2001–16. Applying the Australian Standard Population, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander age-standardized mortality rate was more than double the crude mortality rate in 2001 and 2016, inflated through high weighting of older age groups. Despite divergent population age structures, age-standardized mortality rates remain a key policy metric for measuring progress in reducing Indigenous-non-Indigenous inequities in Australia. Focusing on outcomes age-standardized to the total population can obscure inequities, and denies Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities valid, actionable information about their health and well-being. Age-specific statistics convey the true magnitude of health risks and highlight high-risk subgroups. When requiring standardization, standardizing to a population-specific standard (here, an Indigenous standard) generates metrics centred around and reflective of reality for the population of focus, supporting communities’ self-determination to identify priorities and informing resource allocation and service delivery. The principles outlined here apply across populations, including Indigenous and other populations internationally.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8855998
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88559982022-02-22 Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities Thurber, Katherine A Thandrayen, Joanne Maddox, Raglan Barrett, Eden M Walker, Jennie Priest, Naomi Korda, Rosemary J Banks, Emily Williams, David R Lovett, Raymond Int J Epidemiol Education Corner Methods for calculating health indicators profoundly influence understanding of and action on population health and inequities. Age-standardization can be useful and is commonly applied to account for differences in age structures when comparing health indicators across groups. Age-standardized rates have well-acknowledged limitations, including that they are relative indices for comparison, and not accurate measures of actual rates where the age structures of groups diverge. This paper explores these limitations, and demonstrates alternative approaches through a case study quantifying mortality rates within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) population of Australia and inequities compared with the non-Indigenous population, over 2001–16. Applying the Australian Standard Population, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander age-standardized mortality rate was more than double the crude mortality rate in 2001 and 2016, inflated through high weighting of older age groups. Despite divergent population age structures, age-standardized mortality rates remain a key policy metric for measuring progress in reducing Indigenous-non-Indigenous inequities in Australia. Focusing on outcomes age-standardized to the total population can obscure inequities, and denies Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities valid, actionable information about their health and well-being. Age-specific statistics convey the true magnitude of health risks and highlight high-risk subgroups. When requiring standardization, standardizing to a population-specific standard (here, an Indigenous standard) generates metrics centred around and reflective of reality for the population of focus, supporting communities’ self-determination to identify priorities and informing resource allocation and service delivery. The principles outlined here apply across populations, including Indigenous and other populations internationally. Oxford University Press 2021-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8855998/ /pubmed/34223891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab132 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Education Corner
Thurber, Katherine A
Thandrayen, Joanne
Maddox, Raglan
Barrett, Eden M
Walker, Jennie
Priest, Naomi
Korda, Rosemary J
Banks, Emily
Williams, David R
Lovett, Raymond
Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
title Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
title_full Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
title_fullStr Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
title_full_unstemmed Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
title_short Reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
title_sort reflection on modern methods: statistical, policy and ethical implications of using age-standardized health indicators to quantify inequities
topic Education Corner
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab132
work_keys_str_mv AT thurberkatherinea reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT thandrayenjoanne reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT maddoxraglan reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT barrettedenm reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT walkerjennie reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT priestnaomi reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT kordarosemaryj reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT banksemily reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT williamsdavidr reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities
AT lovettraymond reflectiononmodernmethodsstatisticalpolicyandethicalimplicationsofusingagestandardizedhealthindicatorstoquantifyinequities