Skip to main content
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2004 Mar 1;95(2):90–94. doi: 10.1007/BF03405773

Ecologic Proxies for Household Income

How Well Do They Work for the Analysis of Health and Health Care Utilization?

Murray M Finkelstein 12,22,32,
PMCID: PMC6975971  PMID: 15074896

Abstract

Background

Researchers often use census-derived measures of socioeconomic status (SES) when personal information is not available. Theory predicts that the resulting misclassification will blunt associations between outcomes and SES and that control for confounding by SES will be less effective. The purpose of this paper was to examine the magnitude of this problem using data from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS).

Methods

Subjects were 4,037 respondents to the NPHS who were linked to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. An ecologic measure of income was obtained by linkage of subjects’ postal codes to the Census.

Results

The relationships between the ecologic-level measure and health outcomes or health services utilization were attenuated in comparison to the relationships relative to the direct measure of household income. The ecologic measure also produced poorer control for confounding by income in the analysis of other health relationships.

Conclusions

Many interesting public health and health services questions can be addressed only with the use of ecologic level socioeconomic information. While most of the results were qualitatively similar when the direct and ecologic measures were compared, researchers and users of research findings should be aware that attenuated or potentially misleading findings may result from the use of these methods.

References

  • 1.Finkelstein MM. Do factors other than need determine utilization of physicians’ services in Ontario? CMAJ. 2001;165(5):565–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. JAMA. 1998;279(21):1703–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.21.1703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marmot MG, Smith GD, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study [see comments] Lancet. 1991;337(8754):1387–93. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)93068-K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: Validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(5):703–10. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.82.5.703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Roos NP, Mustard CA. Variation in health and health care use by socioeconomic status in Winnipeg, Canada: Does the system work well? Milbank Q. 1997;75(1):89–111. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Alter DA, Naylor CD, Austin P, Tu JV. Effects of socioeconomic status on access to invasive cardiac procedures and on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(18):1359–67. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199910283411806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Demissie K, Hanley JA, Menzies D, Joseph L, Ernst P. Agreement in measuring socio-economic status: Area-based versus individual measures. Chron Dis Can. 2000;21(1):1–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sin DD, Svenson LW, Man SF. Do area-based markers of poverty accurately measure personal poverty? Can J Public Health. 2001;92(3):184–87. doi: 10.1007/BF03404301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Glazier RH, Creatore MI, Agha MM, Steele LS. Socioeconomic misclassification in Ontario’s Health Care Registry. Can J Public Health. 2003;94(2):140–43. doi: 10.1007/BF03404588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Southern DA, Ghali WA, Faris PD, Norris CM, Galbraith PD, Graham MM, et al. Misclassification of income quintiles derived from area-based measures. A comparison of enumeration area and forward sortation area. Can J Public Health. 2002;93(6):465–69. doi: 10.1007/BF03405041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mustard CA, Derksen S, Berthelot JM, Wolfson M. Assessing ecologic proxies for household income: A comparison of household and neighbourhood level income measures in the study of population health status. Health Place. 1999;5(2):157–71. doi: 10.1016/S1353-8292(99)00008-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Statistics Canada. National Population Health Survey 1994–95. 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–38. doi: 10.2307/1912934. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lindsey JK, Jones B. Choosing among generalized linear models applied to medical data. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):59–68. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<59::AID-SIM733>3.0.CO;2-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Greenland S, Robins J. Invited commentary: Ecologic studies — biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139(8):747–60. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES