Skip to main content
Public Health Reports logoLink to Public Health Reports
. 2001 Mar-Apr;116(2):158–164. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50007-9

Who's number one? The impact of variability on rankings based on public health indicators.

R B Gerzoff 1, G D Williamson 1
PMCID: PMC1497305  PMID: 11847301

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Researchers, government, and the press often rank jurisdictions according to public health indicators; however, measures of uncertainty rarely accompany these comparisons. To demonstrate the variability associated with rankings that use public health measures, the authors examined the uncertainty associated with ranks based on three common methods used to derive public health indicators: age-adjustment, calculations based on census estimates, and calculations based on survey data. METHODS: The authors observed the effect of changing the standard population from the 1970 population to the 1997 population on rank-order lists of jurisdictions according to age-adjusted 1998 mortality rates. They used a Monte Carlo method to calculate confidence intervals (CIs) around ranks based on census estimates of 1998 infant mortality rates and based on 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data on the prevalence of hypertension. RESULTS: Changing the standard year from 1970 to 1997 resulted in a shift of at least three rank-order positions for seven states. Two states shifted five positions. CIs associated with ranking by infant mortality rates were broad, with a mean of 16 ranks. CIs around ranks for the prevalence of hypertension were also wide, with a mean of 18 ranks. CONCLUSION: While ranking based on public health indicators is an attractive and popular way of presenting public health data, caution and close examination of the underlying data are needed for proper interpretation. Alternative methods, such as longitudinal analysis or comparisons with standards, may prove more useful.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (78.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson R. N., Rosenberg H. M. Age standardization of death rates: implementation of the year 2000 standard. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 1998 Oct 7;47(3):1-16, 20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Marshall E. C., Spiegelhalter D. J. Reliability of league tables of in vitro fertilisation clinics: retrospective analysis of live birth rates. BMJ. 1998 Jun 6;316(7146):1701–1705. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7146.1701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ventura S. J., Peters K. D., Martin J. A., Maurer J. D. Births and deaths: United States, 1996. Mon Vital Stat Rep. 1997 Sep 11;46(1 Suppl 2):1–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Public Health Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES