ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2024
Is it possible to identify populations experiencing material disadvantage in primary care? A feasibility study using the Clinical Practice Research Database.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaterial disadvantage is associated with poor health, but commonly available area-based metrics provide a poor proxy for it. We investigate if a measure of material disadvantage could be constructed from UK primary care electronic health records.
methodsUsing data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum (May 2022) linked to the 2019 English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), we sought to (1) identify codes that signified material disadvantage, (2) aggregate these codes into a binary measure of material disadvantage and (3) compare the proportion of people with this binary measure against IMD quintiles for validation purposes.
resultsWe identified 491 codes related to benefits, employment, housing, income, environment, neglect, support services and transport. Participants with one or more of these codes were defined as being materially disadvantaged. Among 30,897,729 research-acceptable patients aged ≥18 with complete data, only 6.1% (n=1,894,225) were classified as disadvantaged using our binary measure, whereas 42.2% (n=13,038,085) belonged to the two most deprived IMD quintiles.
conclusionData in a major primary care research database do not currently contain a useful measure of individual-level material disadvantage. This represents an omission of one of the most important health determinants. Consideration should be given to creating codes for use by primary care practitioners.
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.