Availability and usefulness of selected health and socioeconomic data for community planning.

Abstract

The need to identify geographical areas of highest priority for health and social services to families led to a study of the availability of health and social indexes in San Francisco, and a comparison of two methods (factor analysis and map plotting) for determining their usefulness. The most useful health and socioeconomic indexes are discussed. Means of supplementing indexes derived from the decennial census are also dealt with.

The relevance of socio-demographic and resource factors in the use of acute psychiatric in-patient care in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada

“…At this point a reconsideration of some of our beliefs about the information required in assessing in-patient resource needs, as well as the most appropriate research strategies for attaining that information, may be indicated. Various aspects of these issues have previously been discussed by Wallace et al (1967), Schulberg & Wechsler (1967), Siegel et al (1973), Forster (1979) and West (1981).…”

“…However, it is difficult to transform the ideal into reality (West, 1981). Although various approaches to allocating resources to mental health care have been suggested (Wallace et al 1967;Schulberg & Wechsler, 1967;Forster, 1979), inequalities persist (Maynard, 1972;Longest & Konan, 1979). In the light of recent suggestions that socio-demographic information should be used in mental health planning, a study was conducted to determine how much of the regional variation in the use of specialized acute psychiatric in-patient services could be accounted for by socio-demographic or other factors.…”

A critical appraisal of the Navajo health care system

“…This fact alone suggests greater health needs for the Navajo people. According to the analysis of social and health indicators compiled by Wallace (Wallace et al, 1967) for the measurement of all aspects of health (used here as an index of the measurement of health needs), the Navajo area has a low score, especially as far as social indicators are concerned (see Figure 1). However, the analysis of mortality data and other social and health indicators alone does not allow us to prioritize health problems.…”

“…However, the analysis of mortality data and other social and health indicators alone does not allow us to prioritize health problems. An index developed by IHS for determining the relative importance of disease categories, the Q index, takes into account mortality, morbidity and average lost years of life as well as the amenability of the diseases to prevention or reduction (Wallace et al, 1967). This is accomplished by means of a comparison to a reference population and is, therefore, a more valid measure for determining priorities than the index discussed above.…”