The Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage
Objective: To ascertain general population perceptions of the importance of indicators comprising the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage (IRSD). Methods: Data for this study came from a face‐to‐face Health Omnibus survey of 3,001 residents in metropolitan and country South Australia, cond...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Australian and New Zealand journal of public health 2005-10, Vol.29 (5), p.442-447 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 447 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 442 |
| container_title | Australian and New Zealand journal of public health |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Walker, Ruth Hiller, J.E. |
| description | Objective: To ascertain general population perceptions of the importance of indicators comprising the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage (IRSD).
Methods: Data for this study came from a face‐to‐face Health Omnibus survey of 3,001 residents in metropolitan and country South Australia, conducted in 2003.
Results: Overall, respondents viewed the IRSD indicators as important. Of the 14 indicators, seven were seen as important by more than two‐thirds of respondents (ranging from 90% perceiving the number of families with children and a low income important to 68% perceiving the number of one‐parent families with dependent children as important). Younger respondents and those of lower educational attainment were more likely to perceive the indicators as unimportant, compared with older people. For example, 14% of people aged 15–24 vs. 5% of people aged 55–64 (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00224.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68737215</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1326020023047714</els_id><sourcerecordid>68737215</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6102-ccf666117af4e87d5e0371ab11bdde9530bfe0c7eca9b9180bb824c3dc8a326f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkc1u1DAURiMEoj_wCsgCCbFJsJ3ETrpBVadMCxVUZRCIjeXYN8XTJB7sZDrdsWPLM_IkOGQEiAUCb2zZ537WvSeKHhKckLCeLhOSMR4XGX2fUIzzpK8wpjRLNreiXcLzNGYZzm-Hc0pZjAOyE-15v8QYk3B1N9ohjOZ5lrHd6MviI6DTTsMG2RpdQCN7swb0xipjv33-Csp2tjUKzYyXei27Xl7CAbqEDpxs0MquhrHCdmht4NqjcDCdNkr21nk0eNCot0hDD641HSDpQIbYSo4v-rfMe9GdWjYe7m_3_ejt8-PF0Ul89np-enR4FitGMI2VqhljhHBZZ1BwnQNOOZEVIZXWUOYprmrAioOSZVWSAldVQTOValXIMIw63Y8eT7krZz8N4HvRGq-gaWQHdvCCFTzllOQBfPJXkBQhvsT8B_roD3RpB9eFNkSKGQtTp6wM1MFEKWe9d1CLlTOtdDeCYDF6FUsxehWjVzF6FVuvYhOKH2y_GKoW9K_SrcgAPJuAa9PAzX9Ei8MP5ydZRkNCPCUY38PmZ4J0V4KFmeTi3au5WFycz17M05eCB3428RB0BftOeGWgU6CNA9ULbc2_dPYdpNvcXQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3066001269</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Walker, Ruth ; Hiller, J.E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Walker, Ruth ; Hiller, J.E.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To ascertain general population perceptions of the importance of indicators comprising the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage (IRSD).
Methods: Data for this study came from a face‐to‐face Health Omnibus survey of 3,001 residents in metropolitan and country South Australia, conducted in 2003.
Results: Overall, respondents viewed the IRSD indicators as important. Of the 14 indicators, seven were seen as important by more than two‐thirds of respondents (ranging from 90% perceiving the number of families with children and a low income important to 68% perceiving the number of one‐parent families with dependent children as important). Younger respondents and those of lower educational attainment were more likely to perceive the indicators as unimportant, compared with older people. For example, 14% of people aged 15–24 vs. 5% of people aged 55–64 (p<0.001) viewed the indicator ‘number of one‐parent families and dependent children’ as unimportant.
Conclusions: While the general population generally recognises the IRSD indicators as important measures of area‐based disadvantage, there were systematic age differences in the degree to which individual indicators were deemed important. There was a general lack of support for several indicators (such as proportion of people separated/divorced, houses with no cars).
Implications: This research raises the question of which factors are important in representing area‐based disadvantage for young people and equally the use of this index when examining variations in the health of young Australians.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1326-0200</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1753-6405</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00224.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16255446</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age differences ; Aged ; Attainment ; Census of Population ; Children ; Data Collection ; Educational attainment ; Families & family life ; Female ; Humans ; Income inequality ; Indexes ; Indicators ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Older people ; Parents ; Parents & parenting ; Poverty - statistics & numerical data ; Public health ; Respondents ; Social Conditions ; Socioeconomics ; South Australia ; Vulnerable Populations ; Young adults</subject><ispartof>Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2005-10, Vol.29 (5), p.442-447</ispartof><rights>2005 Copyright 2005 THE AUTHORS.</rights><rights>2005. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6102-ccf666117af4e87d5e0371ab11bdde9530bfe0c7eca9b9180bb824c3dc8a326f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6102-ccf666117af4e87d5e0371ab11bdde9530bfe0c7eca9b9180bb824c3dc8a326f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1467-842X.2005.tb00224.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1467-842X.2005.tb00224.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27865,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16255446$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walker, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiller, J.E.</creatorcontrib><title>The Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage</title><title>Australian and New Zealand journal of public health</title><addtitle>Aust N Z J Public Health</addtitle><description>Objective: To ascertain general population perceptions of the importance of indicators comprising the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage (IRSD).
Methods: Data for this study came from a face‐to‐face Health Omnibus survey of 3,001 residents in metropolitan and country South Australia, conducted in 2003.
Results: Overall, respondents viewed the IRSD indicators as important. Of the 14 indicators, seven were seen as important by more than two‐thirds of respondents (ranging from 90% perceiving the number of families with children and a low income important to 68% perceiving the number of one‐parent families with dependent children as important). Younger respondents and those of lower educational attainment were more likely to perceive the indicators as unimportant, compared with older people. For example, 14% of people aged 15–24 vs. 5% of people aged 55–64 (p<0.001) viewed the indicator ‘number of one‐parent families and dependent children’ as unimportant.
Conclusions: While the general population generally recognises the IRSD indicators as important measures of area‐based disadvantage, there were systematic age differences in the degree to which individual indicators were deemed important. There was a general lack of support for several indicators (such as proportion of people separated/divorced, houses with no cars).
Implications: This research raises the question of which factors are important in representing area‐based disadvantage for young people and equally the use of this index when examining variations in the health of young Australians.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age differences</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Attainment</subject><subject>Census of Population</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Educational attainment</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Income inequality</subject><subject>Indexes</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Parents</subject><subject>Parents & parenting</subject><subject>Poverty - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Respondents</subject><subject>Social Conditions</subject><subject>Socioeconomics</subject><subject>South Australia</subject><subject>Vulnerable Populations</subject><subject>Young adults</subject><issn>1326-0200</issn><issn>1753-6405</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkc1u1DAURiMEoj_wCsgCCbFJsJ3ETrpBVadMCxVUZRCIjeXYN8XTJB7sZDrdsWPLM_IkOGQEiAUCb2zZ537WvSeKHhKckLCeLhOSMR4XGX2fUIzzpK8wpjRLNreiXcLzNGYZzm-Hc0pZjAOyE-15v8QYk3B1N9ohjOZ5lrHd6MviI6DTTsMG2RpdQCN7swb0xipjv33-Csp2tjUKzYyXei27Xl7CAbqEDpxs0MquhrHCdmht4NqjcDCdNkr21nk0eNCot0hDD641HSDpQIbYSo4v-rfMe9GdWjYe7m_3_ejt8-PF0Ul89np-enR4FitGMI2VqhljhHBZZ1BwnQNOOZEVIZXWUOYprmrAioOSZVWSAldVQTOValXIMIw63Y8eT7krZz8N4HvRGq-gaWQHdvCCFTzllOQBfPJXkBQhvsT8B_roD3RpB9eFNkSKGQtTp6wM1MFEKWe9d1CLlTOtdDeCYDF6FUsxehWjVzF6FVuvYhOKH2y_GKoW9K_SrcgAPJuAa9PAzX9Ei8MP5ydZRkNCPCUY38PmZ4J0V4KFmeTi3au5WFycz17M05eCB3428RB0BftOeGWgU6CNA9ULbc2_dPYdpNvcXQ</recordid><startdate>200510</startdate><enddate>200510</enddate><creator>Walker, Ruth</creator><creator>Hiller, J.E.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200510</creationdate><title>The Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage</title><author>Walker, Ruth ; Hiller, J.E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6102-ccf666117af4e87d5e0371ab11bdde9530bfe0c7eca9b9180bb824c3dc8a326f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age differences</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Attainment</topic><topic>Census of Population</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Educational attainment</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Income inequality</topic><topic>Indexes</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Parents</topic><topic>Parents & parenting</topic><topic>Poverty - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Respondents</topic><topic>Social Conditions</topic><topic>Socioeconomics</topic><topic>South Australia</topic><topic>Vulnerable Populations</topic><topic>Young adults</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walker, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiller, J.E.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Australian and New Zealand journal of public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walker, Ruth</au><au>Hiller, J.E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage</atitle><jtitle>Australian and New Zealand journal of public health</jtitle><addtitle>Aust N Z J Public Health</addtitle><date>2005-10</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>442</spage><epage>447</epage><pages>442-447</pages><issn>1326-0200</issn><eissn>1753-6405</eissn><abstract>Objective: To ascertain general population perceptions of the importance of indicators comprising the Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage (IRSD).
Methods: Data for this study came from a face‐to‐face Health Omnibus survey of 3,001 residents in metropolitan and country South Australia, conducted in 2003.
Results: Overall, respondents viewed the IRSD indicators as important. Of the 14 indicators, seven were seen as important by more than two‐thirds of respondents (ranging from 90% perceiving the number of families with children and a low income important to 68% perceiving the number of one‐parent families with dependent children as important). Younger respondents and those of lower educational attainment were more likely to perceive the indicators as unimportant, compared with older people. For example, 14% of people aged 15–24 vs. 5% of people aged 55–64 (p<0.001) viewed the indicator ‘number of one‐parent families and dependent children’ as unimportant.
Conclusions: While the general population generally recognises the IRSD indicators as important measures of area‐based disadvantage, there were systematic age differences in the degree to which individual indicators were deemed important. There was a general lack of support for several indicators (such as proportion of people separated/divorced, houses with no cars).
Implications: This research raises the question of which factors are important in representing area‐based disadvantage for young people and equally the use of this index when examining variations in the health of young Australians.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>16255446</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00224.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1326-0200 |
| ispartof | Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2005-10, Vol.29 (5), p.442-447 |
| issn | 1326-0200 1753-6405 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68737215 |
| source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; Wiley Online Library All Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Age differences Aged Attainment Census of Population Children Data Collection Educational attainment Families & family life Female Humans Income inequality Indexes Indicators Male Middle Aged Mortality Older people Parents Parents & parenting Poverty - statistics & numerical data Public health Respondents Social Conditions Socioeconomics South Australia Vulnerable Populations Young adults |
| title | The Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T22%3A33%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Index%20of%20Relative%20Socio%E2%80%90economic%20Disadvantage:%20general%20population%20views%20on%20indicators%20used%20to%20determine%20area%E2%80%90based%20disadvantage&rft.jtitle=Australian%20and%20New%20Zealand%20journal%20of%20public%20health&rft.au=Walker,%20Ruth&rft.date=2005-10&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=442&rft.epage=447&rft.pages=442-447&rft.issn=1326-0200&rft.eissn=1753-6405&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00224.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68737215%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3066001269&rft_id=info:pmid/16255446&rft_els_id=S1326020023047714&rfr_iscdi=true |