ArticleGenus2018
Evaluation of simple methods for regional mortality forecasts.
Article in Genus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimation and probabilistic projection of age- and sex-specific mortality rates across Brazilian municipalities between 2010 and 2030.Population health metrics · 2024Article
- Local area population projections dataset for Australia.Data in brief · 2022Article
- English Language Proficiency Among Older Migrants in Australia, 2016-2046.Journal of international migration and integration · 2022Article
- Probabilistic Projection of Subnational Life Expectancy.Journal of official statistics · 2021Article
- Article
- Regional Disparity of Medical Resources and Its Effect on Mortality Rates in China.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Advances in mortality forecasting: introduction.Genus · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent decades, considerable research effort has been dedicated to improving mortality forecasting methods. While making valuable contributions to the literature, the bulk of this research has focused on national populations-yet much planning and service delivery occurs at regional and local scales. More attention needs to be paid to subnational mortality forecasting methods.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate eight fairly simple methods of regional mortality forecasting, focusing specifically on the requirements of practising demographers in government and business. DATA AND
methodsData were sourced primarily from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrospective mortality rate forecasts were produced for 88 regions of Australia for 2006-2016. Regional mortality forecast methods were evaluated on the basis of (i) input data requirements, (ii) ease of calculation, (iii) ease of assumption setting and scenario creation, (iv) plausibility of forecast death rates, (v) smoothness of forecast mortality age profiles, and (vi) forecast accuracy.
resultsTwo of the methods produced noticeably higher forecast errors than the others (National Death Rates and SMR Scaling). Five of the methods were judged to be similar in their overall suitability. Two were particularly easy to implement (Broad Age SMR Scaling and Broad Age Rate Ratio Scaling) and provide a good return on the data and effort required. Two others (Brass Relational and Mortality Surface) produced very smooth mortality age profiles and highly plausible death rates, though were relatively more complex to implement.
conclusionThe choice of mortality forecasting method is important for the accuracy of regional population forecasts. But considerations additional to accuracy are important, including those relating to the plausibility of the forecasts and the ease of implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.