Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223891›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2022

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

Katherine A Thurber, Joanne Thandrayen, Raglan Maddox, Eden M Barrett, Jennie Walker, Naomi Priest, Rosemary J Korda, Emily Banks, David R Williams, Raymond Lovett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Katherine A ThurberNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5626-1133
Joanne ThandrayenNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
Raglan MaddoxNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
Eden M BarrettNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
Jennie WalkerNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
Naomi PriestCentre for Social Research and Methods, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
Rosemary J KordaNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
Emily BanksNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.
David R WilliamsDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Raymond LovettNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Acton ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Population GroupsAgedAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesHumansPolicyage distributionbenchmarkinghealth inequityracismReference standards

Identifiers

PMID34223891
PMCPMC8855998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.