Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 85, May 2013, Pages 27-31
Social Science & Medicine

Short report
Cross-sectional study of ethnic differences in the utility of area deprivation measures to target socioeconomically deprived individuals

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.025Get rights and content

Abstract

Area deprivation measures provide a pragmatic tool for targeting public health interventions at socioeconomically deprived individuals. Ethnic minority groups in the UK experience higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation and certain associated diseases than the White population. The aim of this study was to explore ethnic differences in the utility of area deprivation measures as a tool for targeting socioeconomically deprived individuals. We carried out a cross-sectional study using the Health Survey for England 2004. 7208 participants aged 16–64 years from the four largest ethnic groups in England (White, Indian, Pakistani and Black Caribbean) were included. The main outcome measures were percentage agreement, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of area deprivation, measured using Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004, in relation to individual socioeconomic position (measured by education, occupation, income, housing tenure and car access). We found that levels of both area and individual deprivation were higher in the Pakistani and Black Caribbean groups compared to the White group. Across all measures, agreement was lower in the Pakistani (50.9–63.4%) and Black Caribbean (61.0–70.1%) groups than the White (67.2–82.4%) group. However, sensitivity was higher in the Pakistani (0.56–0.64) and Black Caribbean (0.59–0.66) groups compared to the White group (0.24–0.38) and PPV was at least as high. The results for the Indian group were intermediate. We conclude that, in spite of lower agreement, area deprivation is better at identifying individual deprivation in ethnic minority groups. There was no evidence that area based targeting of public health interventions will disadvantage ethnic minority groups.

Highlights

► Ethnic minority populations have a higher risk of many diseases associated with socioeconomic deprivation. ► Area deprivation measures offer a tool for targeting public health interventions at socioeconomically deprived individuals. ► Area deprivation measures identify higher proportions of deprived individuals from Pakistani and Black Caribbean groups. ► Area deprivation measures do not misidentify higher proportions of non-deprived individuals in ethnic minority groups. ► Pragmatic use of area deprivation measures to target deprived individuals would not disadvantage ethnic minority groups.

Introduction

Socioeconomic status is a well established and an important determinant of health and health inequalities. Lower individual socioeconomic status, measured by factors such as education, income, occupation, housing and car ownership, has been shown to be associated with poorer health (Macintyre, Ellaway, Der, Ford, & Hunt, 1998; Marmot, 2005; Marmot et al., 1991). Therefore, targeting public health interventions at socioeconomically deprived individuals has the potential to reduce health inequalities, as well as improve overall health. In practice, measuring and recording socioeconomic position for every individual in the general population is resource intensive and impractical, so alternative approaches are often used. A commonly used approach is to target individuals who live in socioeconomically deprived geographical areas using accessible area based measures, which incorporate multiple aspects of deprivation (Demissie, Hanley, Menzies, Joseph, & Ernst, 2000; Galobardes, Shaw, Lawlor, Lynch, & Davey Smith, 2006; Tunstall & Lupton, 2003). These measures classify small areas using aggregated data about the characteristics of residents (Noble et al., 2004). However, the use of area deprivation measures to classify the socioeconomic position of residents is subject to the “ecological fallacy”; aggregated information relating to a group of individuals may not reflect the characteristics of all individuals in that group (Macintyre, Ellaway, & Cummins, 2002). An effective tool should accurately capture the target population, whilst minimising the number of people who are targeted in error. Using area deprivation as a proxy for individual deprivation in a targeting process may, nonetheless, be justified if a sufficiently high proportion of deprived individuals live in deprived areas and the number of non-deprived individuals targeted inappropriately is sufficiently small.

Ethnic minority groups in the UK experience higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation (Barnard & Turner, 2011; Nazroo, 1998; Smaje, 1995), and a higher risk of associated diseases than the White population (Bhopal et al., 2002; Davey Smith, Chaturvedi, Harding, Nazroo, & Williams, 2000; Nazroo, 2003). Area measures of deprivation currently in use are driven by a majority White population and may not therefore be equally applicable across other ethnic groups (Davey Smith, 2000). It is unclear whether the pragmatic use of area measures of deprivation as a tool for targeting prevention at deprived individuals works equally well in non-white populations.

This study therefore asked three questions. First, are there ethnic differences in the extent to which area deprivation measures agree with individual socioeconomic measures? Second, are there ethnic differences in the proportion of socioeconomically deprived individuals that are identified by area deprivation measures? Third, are there ethnic differences in the extent to which people without individual socioeconomic deprivation are inappropriately included using area deprivation measures? The findings are discussed in relation to the practical implications for public health programmes.

Section snippets

Data

The Health Survey for England (HSE) is a large, annual, cross-sectional survey that contains self-reported information on health and individual circumstances. The HSE 2004 contained a boosted sample of the ethnic minority population in England (Sproston & Mindell, 2004). Multi-stage stratified probability sampling was used to recruit representative samples of the general and ethnic minority population living in private households (Sproston & Mindell, 2006). Postal addresses were used to select

Results

The overall unweighted sample comprised 7208 participants, of whom 4377 (60.7%) were White, 1070 (14.8%) Indian, 874 (12.2%) Pakistani and 887 (12.3%) Black Caribbean (Table 1). Each ethnic minority group had a significantly lower mean age than the White group with the lowest mean age in the Pakistani group. There were significantly fewer males in each ethnic minority group compared to the White group, with the lowest proportion in the Black Caribbean group. In comparison to the White group,

Discussion

The study identified differences between the four ethnic groups in how well area deprivation performs as a tool for targeting deprived individuals. In spite of lower agreement between area based and individual measures of socioeconomic position in the Pakistani and Black Caribbean groups, sensitivity was consistently higher compared to the White group and PPV was no worse in the ethnic minority groups. This suggests that if area deprivation is used as a tool for targeting deprived individuals

References (25)

  • S. Macintyre et al.

    Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them?

    Social Science & Medicine

    (2002)
  • M. Marmot

    Social determinants of health inequalities

    The Lancet

    (2005)
  • M. Marmot et al.

    Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study

    The Lancet

    (1991)
  • H. Barnard et al.

    Poverty and ethnicity: a review of evidence

    (2011)
  • R. Bhopal et al.

    Ethnic and socio-economic inequalities in coronary heart disease, diabetes and risk factors in Europeans and South Asians

    Journal of Public Health Medicine

    (2002)
  • K. Clark et al.

    Enclaves, neighbourhood effects and employment outcomes: ethnic minorities in England and Wales

    Journal of Population Economics

    (2002)
  • G. Davey Smith

    Learning to live with complexity: ethnicity, socioeconomic position, and health in Britain and the United States

    American Journal of Public Health

    (2000)
  • G. Davey Smith et al.

    Ethnic inequalities in health: a review of UK epidemiological evidence

    Critical Public Health

    (2000)
  • K. Demissie et al.

    Agreement in measuring socio-economic status: area-based versus individual measures

    Chronic Diseases in Canada

    (2000)
  • B. Galobardes et al.

    Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 2)

    Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

    (2006)
  • K.D. Lawson et al.

    Comparison of mass and targeted screening strategies for cardiovascular risk: simulation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and coverage using a cross-sectional survey of 3921 people

    Heart

    (2010)
  • S. Macintyre et al.

    Do housing tenure and car access predict health because they are simply markers of income or self esteem? A Scottish study

    Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text