TL/DR –
A University of Michigan study has highlighted the importance of properly measuring socioeconomic deprivation to optimally allocate public health resources. Dr. Kimberly Rollings, who led the study, explained the differences between the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), which quantifies deprivation at a neighborhood or block level, and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which assesses the vulnerability of populations to natural disasters or disease outbreaks. Rollings also noted a statistical error in the ADI related to the inclusion of housing cost, stressing the need to carefully consider the context in which an index is being used to avoid diverting resources from areas in need.
Optimizing Public Health Resources: University of Michigan’s Insights on Socioeconomic Deprivation
A recent study by the University of Michigan explores socioeconomic deprivation metrics to enhance the distribution of public health resources. The lead researcher, Dr. Kimberly Rollings, explains that socioeconomic deprivation encompasses aspects like income, employment, education, and housing. These elements help to gauge the necessities of various populations or geographic regions.
The significance of measuring area-level deprivation lies in understanding and mitigating community inequalities, advises Dr. Rollings. The prevalent tools for evaluating deprivation include the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).
Dr. Rollings acknowledges that despite their frequent interchangeable use, ADI and SVI serve distinct purposes and have their own strengths and limitations. While ADI scrutinizes deprivation at the neighborhood level, SVI identifies populations highly susceptible to disease outbreaks or natural disasters, such as COVID-19.
The study identifies a statistical error with the ADI in its consideration of housing costs. Since average home prices across the U.S vary, they must be normalized for comparison. Failing to do so may result in areas with high poverty and high housing costs appearing as ‘low deprivation’, when the deprivation level is actually high.
The choice of measurement index can significantly impact whether or not communities receive public resources. Therefore, researchers must carefully consider the context in which an index is used to prevent the potential misallocation of resources.
If a community is erroneously marked as “low deprivation,” it may not receive vital resources. Dr. Rollings stresses the importance of careful consideration in choosing an index to avoid diverting resources from needy areas.
Receive more news like this? Sign up for our free, solutions-focused reporting service that delivers content to your inbox each week.
Image courtesy of Dr. Kimberly Rollings.
—
Read More US News