Workshops 3 - 4: Ethnicity Coding and Haddon Matrix Flashcards
collecting ethnicity data
- self-identification
- collector shouldn’t guess
- incapacitated, deceased, newborn or other young are unable to complete questions for themselves
recording ethnicity data
Since 2017 Ministry of Health requires recording at level 4 (must record what responder puts down)
- if >6 responses collected, reduced to 6 using method by StatsNZ
reporting ethnicity data
can output at lower level but important that same aggregation is used for both numerators, denominators and described categories
standard forms of output for multiple ethnicity responses
- total response output
- prioritised output
- sole/combination output
total response output
- each respondent counted in each of recorded ethnic groups (except multiple ethnicities falling under same when reporting at lower level only counted once)
- sum of ethnic group population exceeds total pop.
total response output pros
- follows concept of self-identification (doesn’t alter indiv.s responses)
- potential to represent people who do not identify with any given ethnic group depending on level of detail reported
total response output cons
- complexities in distribution of funding based on pop. numbers
- complexities in monitoring changes in ethnic composition of pop.
- issues in interpretation of data reported by ethnic groupings where comparison between groups include overlapping data
prioritised output
allocated to single prioritised ethnic group regardless of no. ethnicities they responded with
- More frequently used in Ministry of Health stats and widely used in health/disability sector for funding calcs, monitoring changes in ethnic composition of service utilisation etc.
prioritisation
reduction process for output/analysis purposes and doesn’t assume it’s the group the respondent identifies most strongly with
ethnic group codes at level 1
1) European
2) Maori
3) Pacific Peoples
4) Asian
5) MELAA
6) Other ethnicity
MELAA
Middle Eastern Latin American or African
priority order at level 1
1) Maori
2) Pacific Peoples
3) Asian
4) MELAA
5) Other ethnicity
6) European
priority output pros
- Ensures ethnic groups of policy importance or small size are not swamped with NZ Europeans when individuals need to be assigned to single group
- Data easy to work with as individuals only appear once
priority output cons
- Simplifies yet biases resulting stats as it over-represents some groups at expense of others due to order of prioritisation
- Goes against ethnicity principle of self-identification; single ethnicity is externally applied to individuals
sole/combination output
Single ethnic group respondents = sole ethnic categories, multiple ethnic group respondents = combination categories
- uncommon/rarely used in health/disability sector
standard statsNZ sole/combination minimum output
European, Māori, Pacific Peoples., Asian, Other, Māori/European, Māori/Pacific Peoples, ‘Two groups Not Elsewhere Identified’, ‘Three Groups’
sole/combination output pros
- ethnicity count = no. Participants - only one ethnic group reported
- follows self-identification - doesn’t alter responses from respondents
sole/combination output cons
some ethnicities not identifiable from data due to combination categories
relative inequality
similar to relative risk
absolute inequality
similar to risk difference
haddon matrix
brainstorming tool to help identify different ways of intervening (designing interventions) to address injury risks from multiple dimensions`
columns
factors:
- host
- agent/vehicle
- environment
rows
phases:
- pre-event
- event
- post-event
pre-event
before event
- intervention prevents injury occurring in the first place
event
at the site of event
- intervention reduces severity of injury at time of accidnet
post-event
removed from site of event
- intervention reduces consequences of injury after event
host
people or their caregiver at risk of injury
- interventions often have EDUCATIONAL orientation
agent/vehicle
inanimate objects causing injury
- interventions often have ENGINEERING orientation
environment
contextual background (social/physical setting and health system)
intervention descriptions
verb x so that it y
- verb: based on factors
- x: intervention
- y: prevented consequence, based on phase
possible verbs
- host: teach, advertise to individual
- agent: design object
- environment: legislate, fund an advertising campaign, create policy, install something (physical environ.)
3rd dimension of haddon matrix
- effectiveness
- cost
- freedom
- equity
- stigmatisation
- preferences of affected community or indiv
- feasibility
- unforeseen adverse consequences
effectiveness
- how well does the intervention work when applied
can assess using: - literature describing the efficacy of the intervention under controlled conditions
- effectiveness of applications of the intervention in other locales
cost
costs of implementing and enforcing the program or policy
freedom
- freedom of some group may have to be compromised to achieve the intended goal
- freedoms of one group may be in conflict with those of another
equity
horizontal and vertical equity
horizontal equity
involves treating people equally or in a universal fashion
vertical equity
refers to the unequal treatment of unequally situated individuals so as to make them more equal with respect to a particular attribute
stigmatisation
- program or policy should not stigmatize a person or group in the process of serving other purposes
- may be considered desirable e.g for prior sex offenders
preferences
- opposition => limited compliance
- suitability, appropriately taking into account sociocultural context
- important for success and credibility of intervention
feasibility
- should be considered last as not to limit creativity
- seemingly unfeasible may turn out to be feasible
types of feasibility
- technological
- political
- extent to which the organization or group responsible for implementing the countermeasure has the technical or financial resources required to carry it out
