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

Author:

Thurber Katherine A1ORCID,Thandrayen Joanne1,Maddox Raglan1,Barrett Eden M1,Walker Jennie1,Priest Naomi23,Korda Rosemary J1,Banks Emily14,Williams David R56,Lovett Raymond1

Affiliation:

1. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia

2. Centre for Social Research and Methods, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia

3. Population Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia

4. Sax Institute, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

5. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

6. Department of African and African American Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

General Medicine,Epidemiology

Reference30 articles.

1. Age standardization–an indigenous standard?;Robson;Emerg Themes Epidemiol,2007

2. Disparities in health: common myths and uncommon truths;Reid;Pac Health Dialog,2000

3. Kaupapa Maori epidemiology;Simmonds;Austral Epidemiol,2008

4. Measuring cancer in indigenous populations;Sarfati;Ann Epidemiol,2018

5. The health of U.S. racial and ethnic populations;Williams;J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci,2005

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3