Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 97, Issue 5, pp 350–352 | Cite as

Summarizing Health Inequalities in a Balanced Scorecard

Methodological Considerations
  • Nathalie AugerEmail author
  • Marie-France Raynault
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The association between social determinants and health inequalities is well recognized. What are now needed are tools to assist in disseminating such information. This article describes how the Balanced Scorecard may be used for summarizing data on health inequalities. The process begins by selecting appropriate social groups and indicators, and is followed by the measurement of differences across person, place, or time. The next step is to decide whether to focus on absolute versus relative inequality. The last step is to determine the scoring method, including whether to address issues of depth of inequality.

MeSH terms

Population statistics inequalities epidemiology health status indicators information dissemination 

Résumé

L’association entre les déterminants sociaux et les inégalités de santé est bien connue. Il faut maintenant des outils efficaces pour transmettre ces informations. Cet article présente un de ces outils (le « tableau de pointage équilibré » ou Balanced Scorecard) qui peut être utilisé pour synthétiser les données sur les inégalités sociales. Dans un premier temps, on sélectionne les indicateurs et les groupes sociaux appropriés. Les différences entre les personnes, les lieux et dans le temps sont ensuite mesurées, et l’accent peut être mis sur les inégalités relatives ou absolues. On porte enfin un jugement sur ces différences et les niveaux d’inégalités.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Marmot M, Wilkinson RG. Social Determinants of Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Regidor E. Measures of health inequalities: Part 1. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:858–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Regidor E. Measures of health inequalities: Part 2. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:900–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkman LF, Kawachi I (Eds.), Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Auger N, Roy D. The Balanced Scorecard: A tool for health policy decision-making. Can J Public Health. 2004;95(3):233–234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Direction de la Santé Publique de Montréal. Social Inequalities in Health: Annual Report of the Health of the Population. Montréal (Canada): 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pageau M, Choinière R, Ferland M, Sauvageau Y. Le portrait de santé — Le Québec et ses régions. Québec Public Health Institute, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department for Work and Pensions. Opportunity for all: A Summary of the Fourth Annual Report 2002. London: 2002 Sept. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.dwp.gov.uk/pub-lications/dwp/2002/oppal-fourth/opp._summ.pdf (Accessed August 15, 2006).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braveman PA. Monitoring equity in health and healthcare: A conceptual framework. J Health Popul Nutr 2003;21(3):181–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilkins R, Berthelot J-M, Ng E. Trends in mortality by neighbourhood income in urban Canada from 1971 to 1996. Health Rep 2002;13 Suppl:S1–S27.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pampalon R, Raymond G. A deprivation index for health and welfare planning. Chron Dis Can 2000;21(3):104–13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilkins R. Use of postal codes and addresses in the analysis of health data. Health Rep 1993;5:157–177.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinson VA, Hunter D, Shortt SED. Accountability in public health units: Using a modified nominal group technique to develop a balanced scorecard for performance measurement. Can J Public Health 2003;94(5):391–396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keppel KG, Pearcy JN, Klein RJ. Measuring progress in Healthy People 2010. Healthy People 2010 Stat Notes. 2004;25:1–16.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schunemann HJ, Best D, Vist G, Oxman AD. Letters, numbers, symbols and words: How to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ 2003;169(7):677–80. Erratum in: CMAJ 2004;170(7):1082.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Department of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Direction de santé publique de Montréal, Observatoire montréalais des inégalités sociales et de la santéUniversité de MontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations