Open AccessThe Index of Relative Socio‐economic Disadvantage: general population views on indicators used to determine area‐based disadvantage
Author(s) -
Walker Ruth,
Hiller J. E.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
australian and new zealand journal of public health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.946
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1753-6405
pISSN - 1326-0200
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00224.x
Subject(s) - disadvantage , index (typography) , metropolitan area , population , educational attainment , health indicator , perception , demography , geography , socioeconomics , psychology , sociology , economic growth , political science , economics , archaeology , neuroscience , world wide web , computer science , law
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.