ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health1995
Interpreting the new illness question in the UK census for health research on small areas.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating national surveys to estimate small area variations in poor health and limiting long-term illness in Great Britain.BMJ open · 2017Article
- The spatial structure of chronic morbidity: evidence from UK census returns.International journal of health geographics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThe study aimed to identify the various factors that seem to influence the average response to the new census question on limiting, long standing illness at the small area level, to assess the extent to which the new questions adds to information already available in the census and elsewhere, and to discuss how useful the data are likely to be for those planning health and social services.
designThis was a cross sectional analysis of the relationship between rates of limiting, long standing illness (standardised for age and sex) and a large number of indicators of health and socioeconomic status at the small area level.
settingThe study used data relating to 4985 small areas covering the whole of England. The average population was about 10 000.
participantsThe 1991 census of population was addressed to the entire population of England. MAIN
resultsThere are wide variations in the levels of self reported long standing illness between small areas, 70% of which are explained by demographic factors. Variation in age/sex standardised responses to the new census question at the small area level can largely be explained by census data on self reported disability among those of working age, standardised mortality ratio, and by indicators of socioeconomic circumstances relating to social class, ethnicity, and the elderly living alone. These does not seem to be a significant reporting bias due to underemployment.
conclusionUnlike the disability question in the census, the standardised, self reported long standing limiting illness ratio covers the entire population and it is not skewed towards men. Although the variable is a synthesis of the health and social determinants of perceived morbidity, it does not provide much information that was not already available. In addition, it is available every 10 years only and thus may be rather inaccurate as an indicator of relative need towards the end of the decade. Moreover, in future censuses, individuals' answers might be influenced by the knowledge that their responses will affect the volume of resources allocated to the area in which they live.
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.