Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2001 Dec;55(12):913–920. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.12.913

Assessing socioeconomic effects on different sized populations: To weight or not to weight?

N Frohlich 1, K Carriere 1, L Potvin 1, C Black 1
PMCID: PMC1731809  PMID: 11707486

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—Researchers in health care often use ecological data from population aggregates of different sizes. This paper deals with a fundamental methodological issue relating to the use of such data. This study investigates the question of whether, in doing analyses involving different areas, the estimating equations should be weighted by the populations of those areas. It is argued that the correct answer to that question turns on some deep epistemological issues that have been little considered in the public health literature.
DESIGN—To illustrate the issue, an example is presented that estimates entitlements to primary physician visits in Manitoba, Canada based on age/gender and socioeconomic status using both population weighted and unweighted regression analyses.
SETTING AND SUBJECTS—The entire population of the province furnish the data. Primary care visits to physicians based on administrative data, demographics and a measure of socioeconomic status (SERI), based on census data, constitute the measures.
RESULTS—Significant differences between weighted and unweighted analyses are shown to emerge, with the weighted analyses biasing entitlements towards the more populous and advantaged population.
CONCLUSIONS—The authors endorse the position that, in certain problems, data analyses involving population aggregates unweighted by population size are more appropriate and normatively justifiable than are analyses weighted by population. In particular, when the aggregated units make sense, theoretically, as units, it is more appropriate to carry out the analyses without weighting by the size of the units. Unweighted analyses yield more valid estimations.


Keywords: socioeconomic status; population weighting

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (227.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Cheadle A., Wagner E., Koepsell T., Kristal A., Patrick D. Environmental indicators: a tool for evaluating community-based health-promotion programs. Am J Prev Med. 1992 Nov-Dec;8(6):345–350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Eyles J., Birch S., Chambers S., Hurley J., Hutchison B. A needs-based methodology for allocating health care resources in Ontario, Canada: development and an application. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(4):489–500. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90331-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Frohlich N., Mustard C. A regional comparison of socioeconomic and health indices in a Canadian province. Soc Sci Med. 1996 May;42(9):1273–1281. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00220-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Greenland S., Robins J. Invited commentary: ecologic studies--biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples. Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Apr 15;139(8):747–760. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kaplan G. A., Pamuk E. R., Lynch J. W., Cohen R. D., Balfour J. L. Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways. BMJ. 1996 Apr 20;312(7037):999–1003. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7037.999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kennedy B. P., Kawachi I., Prothrow-Stith D. Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States. BMJ. 1996 Apr 20;312(7037):1004–1007. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7037.1004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Krieger N., Williams D. R., Moss N. E. Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997;18:341–378. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies in epidemiology: concepts, principles, and methods. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16:61–81. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.16.050195.000425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Morgenstern H. Uses of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health. 1982 Dec;72(12):1336–1344. doi: 10.2105/ajph.72.12.1336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ross N. A., Wolfson M. C., Dunn J. R., Berthelot J. M., Kaplan G. A., Lynch J. W. Relation between income inequality and mortality in Canada and in the United States: cross sectional assessment using census data and vital statistics. BMJ. 2000 Apr 1;320(7239):898–902. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7239.898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shy C. M. The failure of academic epidemiology: witness for the prosecution. Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Mar 15;145(6):479–487. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Von Korff M., Koepsell T., Curry S., Diehr P. Multi-level analysis in epidemiologic research on health behaviors and outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1992 May 15;135(10):1077–1082. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES