| Information component |
Pg 4 Health Summary – Indicator No. 1 |
| Subject category / domain(s) |
Our Communities |
| Indicator name (* Indicator title in health profile) |
Combined Income Indicator (*Income deprivation) |
| PHO with lead responsibility |
Yorkshire and Humber |
| Date of PHO dataset creation |
Feb 2007 |
| Indicator definition |
Adults and children living in families receiving means-tested benefits, proportion, all ages, 2003, persons. |
| Geography |
England, GOR, Local Authority: Counties, County Districts, Metropolitan County Districts, Unitary Authorities, London Boroughs |
| Timeliness |
Indicator is not regularly updated. Published October 2006. Indicator will probably be next published as part of Indices of Deprivation in 2008, but the definition is likely to have changed to reflect changes in the benefits system. Therefore time-trend analysis is not appropriate. |
|
Rationale:What this indicator purports to measure
|
Income deprivation operationalised as those living in families reliant on means-tested benefits. |
|
Rationale:Public Health Importance
|
The differences in incomes between those on means-tested benefits and those with other sources of income are a major determinant of health inequality in the United Kingdom.Many studies and analyses have demonstrated the association of increasingly poor health with increasing material disadvantage. For instance, all cause mortality, smoking prevalence self-reported long standing illness are all correlated with income deprivation. If income inequalities decrease, health inequalities are likely to decrease also. |
| Rationale: Purpose behind the inclusion of the indicator |
To monitor and help reduce health inequalities. |
|
Rationale:Policy relevance
|
Acheson D. Report of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health. London: TSO, 1998.Department of Health. The NHS Plan. London: TSO, 2000.www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/05/57/83/04055783.pdf. Department of Health. Tackling Health Inequalities: A Programme for Action. Department of Health, 2003.www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/93/62/04019362.pdf. HM Treasury. Public Service Agreements 2005-2008: Chapter 3 Department of Health http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/psa/spend_sr04_psaindex.cfm |
| Interpretation: What a high / low level of indicator value means |
A high indicator value (red circle in health summary chart) represents a statistically significant higher level of income deprivation for that local authority when compared to the national value.A low indicator value (amber circle in health summary chart) represents a statistically significant lower level of estimated income deprivation for that local authority when compared to the national value. |
| Interpretation: Potential for error due to type of measurement method |
Benefits claims are an imperfect measure of income deprivation because some eligible families do not claim their entitlement. Others are living in income deprivation but not entitled to benefits.Accuracy is affected by rounding error, as the count of income deprived persons in each Super Output Area is rounded to the nearest multiple of five. |
| Interpretation: Potential for error due to bias and confounding |
Some groups such as older people are known to have a low propensity to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, and may be over-represented in certain areas. ONS have suppressed counts below 10, which may lead to under-estimation. |
| Confidence Intervals: Definition and purpose |
A confidence interval is a range of values that is normally used to describe the uncertainty around a point estimate of a quantity, for example, a mortality rate. This uncertainty arises as factors influencing the indicator are subject to chance occurrences that are inherent in the world around us. These occurrences result in random fluctuations in the indicator value between different areas and time periods. In the case of indicators based on a sample of the population, uncertainty also arises from random differences between the sample and the population itself.The stated value should therefore be considered as only an estimate of the true or ‘underlying’ value. Confidence intervals quantify the uncertainty in this estimate and, generally speaking, describe how much different the point estimate could have been if the underlying conditions stayed the same, but chance had led to a different set of data. The wider is the confidence interval the greater is the uncertainty in the estimate.Confidence intervals are given with a stated probability level. In Health Profiles 2007 this is 95%, and so we say that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the true value. The use of 95% is arbitrary but is conventional practice in medicine and public health. The confidence intervals have also been used to make comparisons against the national value. For this purpose the national value has been treated as an exact reference value rather than as an estimate and, under these conditions, the interval can be used to test whether the value is statistically significantly different to the national. If the interval includes the national value, the difference is not statistically significant and the value is shown on the health summary chart with a white symbol. If the interval does not include the national value, the difference is statistically significant and the value is shown on the health summary chart with a red or amber symbol depending on whether it is worse or better than the national value respectively. |
