Workshops 3 - 4: Ethnicity Coding and Haddon Matrix Flashcards

1
Q

collecting ethnicity data

A
  • self-identification
  • collector shouldn’t guess
  • incapacitated, deceased, newborn or other young are unable to complete questions for themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

recording ethnicity data

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

reporting ethnicity data

A

can output at lower level but important that same aggregation is used for both numerators, denominators and described categories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

standard forms of output for multiple ethnicity responses

A
  • total response output
  • prioritised output
  • sole/combination output
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

total response output

A
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

total response output pros

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

total response output cons

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

prioritised output

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

prioritisation

A

reduction process for output/analysis purposes and doesn’t assume it’s the group the respondent identifies most strongly with

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

ethnic group codes at level 1

A

1) European
2) Maori
3) Pacific Peoples
4) Asian
5) MELAA
6) Other ethnicity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

MELAA

A

Middle Eastern Latin American or African

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

priority order at level 1

A

1) Maori
2) Pacific Peoples
3) Asian
4) MELAA
5) Other ethnicity
6) European

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

priority output pros

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

priority output cons

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

sole/combination output

A

Single ethnic group respondents = sole ethnic categories, multiple ethnic group respondents = combination categories
- uncommon/rarely used in health/disability sector

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

standard statsNZ sole/combination minimum output

A

European, Māori, Pacific Peoples., Asian, Other, Māori/European, Māori/Pacific Peoples, ‘Two groups Not Elsewhere Identified’, ‘Three Groups’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

sole/combination output pros

A
  • ethnicity count = no. Participants - only one ethnic group reported
  • follows self-identification - doesn’t alter responses from respondents
18
Q

sole/combination output cons

A

some ethnicities not identifiable from data due to combination categories

19
Q

relative inequality

A

similar to relative risk

20
Q

absolute inequality

A

similar to risk difference

21
Q

haddon matrix

A

brainstorming tool to help identify different ways of intervening (designing interventions) to address injury risks from multiple dimensions`

22
Q

columns

A

factors:

  • host
  • agent/vehicle
  • environment
23
Q

rows

A

phases:

  • pre-event
  • event
  • post-event
24
Q

pre-event

A

before event

- intervention prevents injury occurring in the first place

25
event
at the site of event | - intervention reduces severity of injury at time of accidnet
26
post-event
removed from site of event | - intervention reduces consequences of injury after event
27
host
people or their caregiver at risk of injury | - interventions often have EDUCATIONAL orientation
28
agent/vehicle
inanimate objects causing injury | - interventions often have ENGINEERING orientation
29
environment
contextual background (social/physical setting and health system)
30
intervention descriptions
verb x so that it y - verb: based on factors - x: intervention - y: prevented consequence, based on phase
31
possible verbs
- host: teach, advertise to individual - agent: design object - environment: legislate, fund an advertising campaign, create policy, install something (physical environ.)
32
3rd dimension of haddon matrix
- effectiveness - cost - freedom - equity - stigmatisation - preferences of affected community or indiv - feasibility - unforeseen adverse consequences
33
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
34
cost
costs of implementing and enforcing the program or policy
35
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
36
equity
horizontal and vertical equity
37
horizontal equity
involves treating people equally or in a universal fashion
38
vertical equity
refers to the unequal treatment of unequally situated individuals so as to make them more equal with respect to a particular attribute
39
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
40
preferences
- opposition => limited compliance - suitability, appropriately taking into account sociocultural context - important for success and credibility of intervention
41
feasibility
- should be considered last as not to limit creativity | - seemingly unfeasible may turn out to be feasible
42
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