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
