P2-184 Measures of health inequality applied to dental inspection data

The aim of this study was to apply tests of inequality to dental inspection data from 3-year-old children in Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to compare and contrast their usefulness. Dental inspections were repeated from 2006/7 to 2009/10. The measures of caries experience used were d3mft >0 and me...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979) 2011-08, Vol.65 (Suppl 1), p.A272-A272
Hauptverfasser: McMahon, A D, Blair, Y, McCall, D R, Macpherson, L M D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page A272
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page A272
container_title Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)
container_volume 65
creator McMahon, A D
Blair, Y
McCall, D R
Macpherson, L M D
description The aim of this study was to apply tests of inequality to dental inspection data from 3-year-old children in Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to compare and contrast their usefulness. Dental inspections were repeated from 2006/7 to 2009/10. The measures of caries experience used were d3mft >0 and mean dmft, while the measure of socioeconomic status was “quintiles” of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Analyses of each year's data included: raw summaries by SIMD score; logistic regression (LR) models with ROC plots and c-index; Significant Caries Index (SIC); Population Attributable Risk (PAR); Concentration Index; Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curves; Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Relative Index of Inequality (RII). We inspected 10 022 three year old children (19% of the population). The prevalence of obvious decay was 26%, 25%, 18% and 17%, in the 4 years. Raw analyses revealed a drop in absolute inequality, but little change in relative inequality. The SII values over the 4-year period were −1.61, −1.38, −1.16 and −0.54, respectively. ORs from the LR models provide relative estimates (backed up by the ROC plots), the SIC and the PAR are good at picking up the absolute reduction, the Concentration Index does not add much information, the GINI coefficient does pick up inequality but is counter-intuitive in this context, and the SII and RII are useful. We found that standard analyses such as LR and ROC are good for estimating dental inequalities, but other methods are needed to more graphically demonstrate reductions in absolute inequality.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/jech.2011.142976j.19
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_899133484</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4013844751</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b2299-59ae8cbaf264c49594eec856e2b3e751cb6c9350bec10c88c531db55fe577a243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMlKxEAQhhtRcFzewEPAg6fErl7S6aOMOoo7LoiXptNTYRIzSSadgN68-KI-iRlGPHjyVAX1_VXFR8ge0AiAx4cFulnEKEAEgmkVFxHoNTICoWjIFE_WyYiC4CGl8nmTbHlf0KFVTI_I2S0LIRFfH59XaH3fog_qLJihLbtZkFe46G2Zd--BbZoyx2nQ1cEUq86Ww9A36Lq8roKp7ewO2chs6XH3p26Tx9OTh_FZeHkzOR8fXYYpY1qHUltMXGozFgsntNQC0SUyRpZyVBJcGjvNJU3RAXVJ4iSHaSplhlIpywTfJgervU1bL3r0nZnn3mFZ2grr3ptEa-BcJEty_w9Z1H1bDc8ZUEozFXNQAyVWlGtr71vMTNPmc9u-G6Bmadcs7ZqlXfNj14AeYuEqlvsO334ztn01seJKmuunsXngF3fPk_sXczzwhys-nRf_u_ANUmaMMw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779276317</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>P2-184 Measures of health inequality applied to dental inspection data</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><creator>McMahon, A D ; Blair, Y ; McCall, D R ; Macpherson, L M D</creator><creatorcontrib>McMahon, A D ; Blair, Y ; McCall, D R ; Macpherson, L M D</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to apply tests of inequality to dental inspection data from 3-year-old children in Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to compare and contrast their usefulness. Dental inspections were repeated from 2006/7 to 2009/10. The measures of caries experience used were d3mft &gt;0 and mean dmft, while the measure of socioeconomic status was “quintiles” of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Analyses of each year's data included: raw summaries by SIMD score; logistic regression (LR) models with ROC plots and c-index; Significant Caries Index (SIC); Population Attributable Risk (PAR); Concentration Index; Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curves; Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Relative Index of Inequality (RII). We inspected 10 022 three year old children (19% of the population). The prevalence of obvious decay was 26%, 25%, 18% and 17%, in the 4 years. Raw analyses revealed a drop in absolute inequality, but little change in relative inequality. The SII values over the 4-year period were −1.61, −1.38, −1.16 and −0.54, respectively. ORs from the LR models provide relative estimates (backed up by the ROC plots), the SIC and the PAR are good at picking up the absolute reduction, the Concentration Index does not add much information, the GINI coefficient does pick up inequality but is counter-intuitive in this context, and the SII and RII are useful. We found that standard analyses such as LR and ROC are good for estimating dental inequalities, but other methods are needed to more graphically demonstrate reductions in absolute inequality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-005X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1470-2738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jech.2011.142976j.19</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JECHDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Children ; Decay ; Inspection ; Socioeconomics</subject><ispartof>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979), 2011-08, Vol.65 (Suppl 1), p.A272-A272</ispartof><rights>2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2011 (c) 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jech.bmj.com/content/65/Suppl_1/A272.1.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jech.bmj.com/content/65/Suppl_1/A272.1.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,776,780,3183,23550,27901,27902,77342,77373</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McMahon, A D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blair, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCall, D R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macpherson, L M D</creatorcontrib><title>P2-184 Measures of health inequality applied to dental inspection data</title><title>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</title><addtitle>J Epidemiol Community Health</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to apply tests of inequality to dental inspection data from 3-year-old children in Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to compare and contrast their usefulness. Dental inspections were repeated from 2006/7 to 2009/10. The measures of caries experience used were d3mft &gt;0 and mean dmft, while the measure of socioeconomic status was “quintiles” of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Analyses of each year's data included: raw summaries by SIMD score; logistic regression (LR) models with ROC plots and c-index; Significant Caries Index (SIC); Population Attributable Risk (PAR); Concentration Index; Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curves; Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Relative Index of Inequality (RII). We inspected 10 022 three year old children (19% of the population). The prevalence of obvious decay was 26%, 25%, 18% and 17%, in the 4 years. Raw analyses revealed a drop in absolute inequality, but little change in relative inequality. The SII values over the 4-year period were −1.61, −1.38, −1.16 and −0.54, respectively. ORs from the LR models provide relative estimates (backed up by the ROC plots), the SIC and the PAR are good at picking up the absolute reduction, the Concentration Index does not add much information, the GINI coefficient does pick up inequality but is counter-intuitive in this context, and the SII and RII are useful. We found that standard analyses such as LR and ROC are good for estimating dental inequalities, but other methods are needed to more graphically demonstrate reductions in absolute inequality.</description><subject>Children</subject><subject>Decay</subject><subject>Inspection</subject><subject>Socioeconomics</subject><issn>0143-005X</issn><issn>1470-2738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMlKxEAQhhtRcFzewEPAg6fErl7S6aOMOoo7LoiXptNTYRIzSSadgN68-KI-iRlGPHjyVAX1_VXFR8ge0AiAx4cFulnEKEAEgmkVFxHoNTICoWjIFE_WyYiC4CGl8nmTbHlf0KFVTI_I2S0LIRFfH59XaH3fog_qLJihLbtZkFe46G2Zd--BbZoyx2nQ1cEUq86Ww9A36Lq8roKp7ewO2chs6XH3p26Tx9OTh_FZeHkzOR8fXYYpY1qHUltMXGozFgsntNQC0SUyRpZyVBJcGjvNJU3RAXVJ4iSHaSplhlIpywTfJgervU1bL3r0nZnn3mFZ2grr3ptEa-BcJEty_w9Z1H1bDc8ZUEozFXNQAyVWlGtr71vMTNPmc9u-G6Bmadcs7ZqlXfNj14AeYuEqlvsO334ztn01seJKmuunsXngF3fPk_sXczzwhys-nRf_u_ANUmaMMw</recordid><startdate>20110801</startdate><enddate>20110801</enddate><creator>McMahon, A D</creator><creator>Blair, Y</creator><creator>McCall, D R</creator><creator>Macpherson, L M D</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110801</creationdate><title>P2-184 Measures of health inequality applied to dental inspection data</title><author>McMahon, A D ; Blair, Y ; McCall, D R ; Macpherson, L M D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b2299-59ae8cbaf264c49594eec856e2b3e751cb6c9350bec10c88c531db55fe577a243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Children</topic><topic>Decay</topic><topic>Inspection</topic><topic>Socioeconomics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McMahon, A D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blair, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCall, D R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macpherson, L M D</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McMahon, A D</au><au>Blair, Y</au><au>McCall, D R</au><au>Macpherson, L M D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>P2-184 Measures of health inequality applied to dental inspection data</atitle><jtitle>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</jtitle><addtitle>J Epidemiol Community Health</addtitle><date>2011-08-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A272</spage><epage>A272</epage><pages>A272-A272</pages><issn>0143-005X</issn><eissn>1470-2738</eissn><coden>JECHDR</coden><abstract>The aim of this study was to apply tests of inequality to dental inspection data from 3-year-old children in Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to compare and contrast their usefulness. Dental inspections were repeated from 2006/7 to 2009/10. The measures of caries experience used were d3mft &gt;0 and mean dmft, while the measure of socioeconomic status was “quintiles” of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Analyses of each year's data included: raw summaries by SIMD score; logistic regression (LR) models with ROC plots and c-index; Significant Caries Index (SIC); Population Attributable Risk (PAR); Concentration Index; Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curves; Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Relative Index of Inequality (RII). We inspected 10 022 three year old children (19% of the population). The prevalence of obvious decay was 26%, 25%, 18% and 17%, in the 4 years. Raw analyses revealed a drop in absolute inequality, but little change in relative inequality. The SII values over the 4-year period were −1.61, −1.38, −1.16 and −0.54, respectively. ORs from the LR models provide relative estimates (backed up by the ROC plots), the SIC and the PAR are good at picking up the absolute reduction, the Concentration Index does not add much information, the GINI coefficient does pick up inequality but is counter-intuitive in this context, and the SII and RII are useful. We found that standard analyses such as LR and ROC are good for estimating dental inequalities, but other methods are needed to more graphically demonstrate reductions in absolute inequality.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><doi>10.1136/jech.2011.142976j.19</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0143-005X
ispartof Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979), 2011-08, Vol.65 (Suppl 1), p.A272-A272
issn 0143-005X
1470-2738
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_899133484
source Jstor Complete Legacy; BMJ Journals - NESLi2
subjects Children
Decay
Inspection
Socioeconomics
title P2-184 Measures of health inequality applied to dental inspection data
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T15%3A36%3A25IST&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=P2-184%E2%80%85Measures%20of%20health%20inequality%20applied%20to%20dental%20inspection%20data&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20epidemiology%20and%20community%20health%20(1979)&rft.au=McMahon,%20A%20D&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A272&rft.epage=A272&rft.pages=A272-A272&rft.issn=0143-005X&rft.eissn=1470-2738&rft.coden=JECHDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jech.2011.142976j.19&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4013844751%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=1779276317&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true