Into a SEIFA SES cul-de-sac? Export

@article{mccracken_2001, abstract = {Use of the Australian Bureau of Statistics' SEIFA scores has almost become an automatic practice in area-based research on socio-economic status (SES) correlates of health inequalities in Australia in recent years. This article questions the wisdom of this emerging heavy, often singular, reliance on the SEIFA indexes for representing a real socio-economic condition. It is argued that improvements in our understanding of the social and economic processes that produce health inequalities will not occur unless we move beyond SEIFA's broad brush. Data for New England Area Health local government areas are used to support the argument.}, author = {McCracken, K.}, citeulike-article-id = {3393329}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11529609}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=11529609}, comment = {A cautionary note on the use of SEIFA (Australian deprivation score) indicators to measure area socio-economic status, which, in the author's opinion has become relied-upon too frequently. Argues that the most commonly used SEIFA index, the Index of Relative Social-Disadvantage (IRSD) is too blunt and too broad to be an appropriate indicator for measuring which particular aspects of area social disadvantage are the most crucial in explaining health inequalities.}, issn = {1326-0200}, journal = {Australian and New Zealand journal of public health}, keywords = {area, australia, caution, data, deprivation, indicators, seifa, small-area, socio-economic-status}, month = {August}, number = {4}, pages = {305--306}, posted-at = {2008-10-10 14:21:33}, priority = {0}, title = {Into a SEIFA SES cul-de-sac?}, url = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11529609}, volume = {25}, year = {2001} }

TY - JOUR ID - mccracken_2001 L3 - citeulike-article-id:3393329 N2 - Use of the Australian Bureau of Statistics' SEIFA scores has almost become an automatic practice in area-based research on socio-economic status (SES) correlates of health inequalities in Australia in recent years. This article questions the wisdom of this emerging heavy, often singular, reliance on the SEIFA indexes for representing a real socio-economic condition. It is argued that improvements in our understanding of the social and economic processes that produce health inequalities will not occur unless we move beyond SEIFA's broad brush. Data for New England Area Health local government areas are used to support the argument. IS - 4 JF - Australian and New Zealand journal of public health SN - 1326-0200 EP - 306 TI - Into a SEIFA SES cul-de-sac? VL - 25 SP - 305 KW - area KW - australia KW - caution KW - data KW - deprivation KW - indicators KW - seifa KW - small-area KW - socio-economic-status N1 - A cautionary note on the use of SEIFA (Australian deprivation score) indicators to measure area socio-economic status, which, in the author's opinion has become relied-upon too frequently. Argues that the most commonly used SEIFA index, the Index of Relative Social-Disadvantage (IRSD) is too blunt and too broad to be an appropriate indicator for measuring which particular aspects of area social disadvantage are the most crucial in explaining health inequalities. AU - McCracken, K PY - 2001/08// UR - http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11529609 ER -