Introduction
Measurement of health and disparities
General properties of indicators
Capacity for demonstrating disparity
Measure | Definition |
---|---|
Ratio | The quotient of rates or values |
Difference | The difference of rates or values |
Effect index | A regression slope |
Population Attributable Risk | A given rate compared to some baseline rate |
Index of dissimilarity | Percent of cases that would have to be redistributed to have the same rate for all SES groups |
Slope Index of Inequality | Slope of the regression line of a health measure against rank ordered SES category |
Relative Index of Inequality | Slope Index of Inequality divided either by the mean or the highest level of the health measure |
Lorenz Curve | Cumulative proportion of the population plotted against cumulative proportion of a health variable; the 45o line represents uniform distribution |
Gini Coefficient | Twice the area between the empirical Lorenz curve and its diagonal, a summary measure of deviation that corresponds to the amount of inequality |
Concentration Curve and Concentration Index | Similar to Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient, but health variable is plotted against ordered socioeconomic status |
Relative Distribution Measures | A more general class of measures that permits direct comparison of two distributions |
Symmetrized Renyi Index | A measure based on entropy that is invariant with respect to a reference group and that permits judgment-weighting based on the perceived importance of disparities |
Criteria for indicators
Pitfalls and problems
Aggregation of indicators
The major compilations of indicators
Compilation | Description |
---|---|
WHO: Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool (Urban HEART) [31] | |
This long term project of the WHO Kobe Center and its collaborators provides member states with a tool to assess inequalities in health status in their urban centers. In addition to a core set of health care outcomes (number of indicators [4] and health determinants [8]), it has a set of strongly recommended outcomes (4), physical environment and infrastructure variables (3), social and human development measures (6), economic indicators (3) and governance indicators (2). Since its primary focus is urban, it includes variables not found in many of the other projects (e.g. households served by solid waste management systems; solid fuel use; improved sanitation). | |
Healthy People 2020 (US Department of Health and Human Services) [34] | |
The Healthy People initiative is a 30-year project, updated every 10 years that attempts to track the progress made in population health in the United States. It compares currently available data to a set of predetermined goals to judge that progress. The 26 leading health indicators within 12 topic areas focus on personal behaviors, environmental quality and access to health care. The major effort here is to provide an agenda for prevention, rather than a metric, so that HP2010 is not as germane to the current task, but does provide an exhaustive list of indicators. An historical overview and comprehensive summary of current indicators is found in: | |
A current update may be found at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/leading-health-indicators/Healthy-People-2020-Leading-Health-Indicators%3A-Progress-Update | |
WHO Health Compendium Indicators, 2012 [41] | |
The Health Compendium Indicators provide the metadata for an array of health indicators that are used in many contexts by WHO. As titled, it is a registry of data and sources, and does not in itself purport to be a set of metrics or indicators. It does, however, provide a wide array of measures that can be incorporated into an urban health metric. | |
Michigan Critical Health Indicators (Michigan Department of Community Health, USA) [32] | |
This set of indicators was designed to measure the health and health behaviors of Michigan residents. The current report (2011), which is organized by 4 specific health topics and their 28 related measures or indicators, is upbeat. It asserts that, in general, the health of Michigan’s population is improving, with only a few indicators going in the wrong direction (adult obesity, diabetes, chlamydial infection), and a number of health disparities were documented. The report is a good demonstration of the use of health metrics in the longitudinal analysis of population health trends. It does not provide a single, or composite metric, and is not focused exclusively on urban areas. | |
Community Health Status Indicators (US Department of Health and Human Services) [35] | |
The CHSI provides an online interactive site for United States counties to get information about themselves. It includes demographics, summary health measures (life expectancy, all-cause mortality, self-rated health status, and average number of unhealthy days), leading causes of death, vital statistics, environmental health, preventive services, risk factors, and access to care. It provides a county with the data elements compared to the US national average, dividing the results in 4 quadrants, so that a county can see for which measures it is doing better or worse than the national average. This is an interesting approach that provides an overview to a small population unit of how it is doing compared to everyone else. It is not specifically urban, and does not provide a single or composite measure, but is a useful approach and reflects the techniques used by a number of international sites. | |
Environmental Health Indicators (CDC, USA) [37] | |
The US CDC maintains a site for Environmental Public Health Indicators (EPHI), with a larger set of metrics, and a smaller set of core indicators. The purpose is to provide a framework for state and local health departments to make a comprehensive assessment of environmental hazards. The actual measurements, and their analysis and synthesis, are to be obtained by the agency using the framework. In this regard then, the site provides a useful set of metrics, but does not pursue data collection, analysis, or judgments itself. | |
Environmental Health Indicators (California, USA) [38] | |
The California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch, compiled a set of 18 indicators that overlap to a large extent with Healthy People 2010 and with the WHO frameworks. The list focuses on environmental hazards, but includes measures on population, demographics, health, health outcomes, and some specific measures related to California. It provides little that is new or original, but the discussion of each measure provides a good summary for the state. | |
National Women’s Health Indicators Database (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) [39] | |
The site uses measures from a variety of other efforts. It is an assemblage of metrics that relate primarily to women’s health, but it does not break new ground. The measures are derived from other sites. | |
European Urban Health Indicators System [75] | |
This project is an ongoing development of a set of comparable urban health indicators in 60 urban areas of Europe. It uses a newly developed health survey instrument and other routinely available data (such as mortality statistics). It focuses specifically on urban area data to “provide tools for evidence based policy.” It is a work in progress, and will have as its product a wide array of tools and metrics for cross sectional and longitudinal assessment. The project does not attempt to provide a single urban metric or composite statistic, but rather to provide a basis for ongoing analysis and decision making with complex data. Its emphasis on the development of local perspective creates important similarities with Urban HEART. Euro-URHIS 2, recently completed, has begun publication of its findings. | |
Sustainable Communities Index (San Francisco, USA) [33] | |
The San Francisco Department of Health has created a website that can be used as a workbook for assessing local health and environment status. This website provides a sophisticated and comprehensive workbook of all the major items related to urban health and environment. Neighborhoods of metrics available through the Census and through other public sources). This grouping attempts to connect public health concerns to urban development planning. There are two primary indicators of Health Systems along with numerous others grouped under Environment, Transportation, Community Cohesion, Public Realm, Education, Housing and Economy. | |
Cities Environment Report on the Internet (CEROI) [36] | |
CEROI is a Norwegian-based organization tasked with providing cities sound environmental information for decision making. To that end, it prepared a common set of 90 indicators. These are organized in a set of 29 core areas, and was built on prior efforts by a number of European entities: European Common Indicators; European Environmental Agency indicators; European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working conditions; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives; and United National Center for Human Settlements. Both the focal areas and the list of indicators are concordant with many of the other major lists already cited. | |
UN HABITAT : Habitat Agenda Urban Indicators [76] | |
A part of the Millennium Developmental Goals (MDG), the UN HABITAT developed a set of Habitat Agenda Urban Indicators: 20 key indicators; 9 check lists; and 13 extensive indicators. For ease of data collections, they are grouped into two clusters: those obtained from censuses, household surveys, DHS surveys and Multiple Indicators Cluster Surveys (see below); and those from other sources, including official records, housing boards, financial institutions, police, NGOs, and informed estimates. This is targeted specifically to cities, and provides direct instruction to localities on how to collect information to serve the 8 MDG areas. The listing itself is a comprehensive look at the built environment, but also includes several measures on social development, environmental management, economic development and governance. | |
World Development Indicators [43] | |
The World Bank has developed a set of 508 indicators covering 217 countries for the period from 1960 to 2013. These 50 years are a treasure trove of economic data, but there are as well a set of 36 health indicators and 17 urban indicators. It appears that no attempt has been made at further amalgamation of these variables, but their high concordance with other groupings, and the breadth and depth of the data make them an invaluable resource. | |
UNICEF: Data: Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women [40] | |
UNICEF supports countries in collecting data related to children and women through Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), currently in its fifth iteration. The wealth of data available on children and women’s health make this a valuable source for construction of an index, though that does not appear to be part of the overall agenda of this activity. Many of the variables related to children and attendant issues may be found in the other major projects as well. |
The properties of indices
Aggregation | Index Methodology |
---|---|
Social Health of the States (2008) [42] | |
The Institute for Innovation in Social Policy (Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA) has a long running interest in tracking health and social equality in the United States. It uses 16 indicators, which are scaled so that the worst possible average is 50. The differences between a state’s actual average and the worst possible is expressed as a percentage of 50; the larger the percentage, the higher the social health score. States are ranked and the 50 states are grouped in quintiles, with ranks 1–10 deemed excellent, and ranks 41–50 deemed poor. Thus this project provides a set of indicators (see their table that is built on the life cycle, and has many points of concordance with those already discussed). In addition it calculates an Index from these that permits ranking and tracking of states. This is obviously not specific to urban areas, but is of interest in development of a metric for urban areas. | |
Michigan index of urban prosperity [45] |
www.landpolicy.msu.edu
(The initiative on Michigan prosperity is active, but the Index is not currently available, highlighting the evanescent nature of some of these enterprises.) |
This index, developed by the group that created the Michigan Critical Health Indicators (see above), combines multiple components: crime rate; property value change; median household income; employment rate; employment change; graduation rate; MEAP passing rate; young adults; population change. These indices are measurements that are compared to the overall state measurement, taken to be 1. They do not explicitly state how the 9 measures are combined to produce an overall index, though it would appear to be a simple average. They apply this index to a number of urban areas within the state, showing that Ann Arbor (a University town) is faring much better than its more gritty urban counterparts (such as Detroit). This effort is a good example of the attempt to construct an index (and could be classified as well as a Unitary Indicator), though it is not clear that it would be applicable in developing areas where much of the data might not be available. The initiative on Michigan prosperity is active, but the Index is not currently available, highlighting the evanexcent nature of some of these enterprises. | |
Index of Resident Economic Well Being [46] | In this older study, the authors developed a 5-component index that includes: unemployment rate; poverty rate; labour force participation; median household income; per capita income. These are combined using N-scores (like z-scores but use deviations from the median), but the details are not provided. It is another attempt to use a few indicators to form a unitary metric that can be used to compare areas. |
Noted also in their discussion: City Distress Index (city poverty rate, unemployment rate, per capita income growth, and population change); James, F. (1990) City needs and distress in the United State : 1970s to the mid 1980s, in: M. Kaplan and F. James (Ed.) The Future of National Urban Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Other measures are reviewed there as well, but all seem to follow a similar pattern. These metrics are specifically urban, but not specifically health-related. | |
The Human Development Index focuses on three fundamental measures: life expectancy at birth; mean years of schooling and expected years of school; gross national income per capita. Each of these measures is “normalized” by taking the country value as a percent of the range of the most extreme values ([country value – minimum value]/[maximum value – minimum value]). The two measures of education are then combined by taking their geometric mean, and this combined value is further combined with the other two measures using the geometric mean. The result is a value between 0 and 1.0 that reflects the relative place of each country in the overall ranking of nations. The measure is thus complex in its creation but simple in its interpretation. It serves as an interesting model for a possible Urban Health Index, which could be constructed from a small number of constantly recurring measures, or a possible Urban Health Disparities Index, with similar characteristics. | |
The HDI has now been augmented by a number of similarly-constructed measures whose characteristics have considerable ramifications for the development of an Urban Health Index: | |
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ihdi/) | |
Gender Inequality Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/gii/) | |
Multidimensional Poverty Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/mpi/) | |
Each of these requires considerable mathematical manipulation and might not be readily accessible by health workers in country, but they provide a sophisticated example of an approach to a unitary index that may have value. | |
Bertelsmann Transformation Index [49] | |
Though not directly related to health and urbanicity, the BTI is an interesting example of index construction by a somewhat different route. A total of 17 criteria subdivided into 52 “questions” are provided in a country report for each of the 129 participating nations. Experts on subject matter and from the participating countries review and “calibrate” the numbers which are then subjected to a final review by the BTI board. The scores are combined using linear aggregation (the exact method is not reported on the website) and an overall score for a number of domains is assigned. The major difference between this Index and many of the others is that it employs a modified Delphi technique rather than simply aggregating available statistics. An approach of this sort may be of value in developing an index, but might not be workable on the local level. | |
Corruption Perception Index [50] | |
Transparency International has created an index that ranks countries according to their perception of corruption in the public sector. It uses a minimum of three sources for each country, carried out by “independent and reputable institutions” (their web materials cite 12 different surveys from 11 listed organizations, of which the BTI, above, is one). The data are standardized using matching percentiles, then undergo beta transformation for which the cumulative distribution function is used. The final CPI is the linear average of the transformed values. This complex process, involving two important transformations is thus based on an amalgamation of impressions from many sources, and rests heavily on a Delphi process as well. The final product is a rank ordering of nations, with attendant political ramifications. |
Simple indices
More complex indices
Measuring the urban environment
Name of Project or Initiative | Description of project | Description of Indicators |
---|---|---|
UN-Habitat Global Urban Indicators Database [76] | City level data and conditions of urban areas | 20 key indicators, 9 check lists and 13 extensive indicators. See also Table 2. |
ICLEI - Cities 21 Project [78] | Objectives include to help establish trends in urban environment | A set of 70 indicators have been proposed |
UNEP/GRID – CEROI Project [36] | Goal to facilitate access to information to help with decision-making at city level | A list of 90 indicators |
See also Table 2 | ||
European Sustainable Cities Report (European Common Indicators) [79] | Monitoring tool to measure impacts of urban activities for local and regional authorities | 10 sustainability indicators |
UK Sustainable Development Indicators [80] | Proposed to monitor sustainability and quality of life | 12 headline indicators and 23 supplementary indicators of sustainability and quality of life |
Healthy Cities Project Indicators [81] | WHO European Office initiated project that has helped to develop environmental health profiles of cities | Indicators include measures of health, health services, environment and socioeconomic aspects |