Simple versus composite indicators of socioeconomic status in resource allocation formulae: the case of the district resource allocation formula in Malawi

Abstract

BackgroundThe district resource allocation formula in Malawi was recently reviewed to include stunting as a proxy measure of socioeconomic status. In many countries where the concept of need has been incorporated in resource allocation, composite indicators of socioeconomic status have been used. In the Malawi case, it is important to ascertain whether there are differences between using single variable or composite indicators of socioeconomic status in allocations made to districts, holding all other factors in the resource allocation formula constant.MethodsPrincipal components analysis was used to calculate asset indices for all districts from variables that capture living standards using data from the Malawi Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006. These were normalized and used to weight district populations. District proportions of national population weighted by both the simple and composite indicators were then calculated for all districts and compared. District allocations were also calculated using the two approaches and compared.ResultsThe two types of indicators are highly correlated, with a spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.97 at the 1% level of significance. For 21 out of the 26 districts included in the study, proportions of national population weighted by the simple indicator are higher by an average of 0.6 percentage points. For the remaining 5 districts, district proportions of national population weighted by the composite indicator are higher by an average of 2 percentage points. Though the average percentage point differences are low and the actual allocations using both approaches highly correlated (ρ of 0.96), differences in actual allocations exceed 10% for 8 districts and have an average of 4.2% for the remaining 17. For 21 districts allocations based on the single variable indicator are higher.ConclusionsVariations in district allocations made using either the simple or composite indicators of socioeconomic status are not statistically different to recommend one over the other. However, the single variable indicator is favourable for its ease of computation.

Health care access dimensions and cervical cancer screening in South Africa: analysis of the world health survey

“…Household socioeconomic status (SES) was defined based on a composite index of permanent household income indicators. This method has been widely used to characterize SES in lower income countries where income and educational level may not adequately capture the full extent of an individual’s socio-economic status [ 25 - 27 ]. Principal components analysis (PCA) was performed on data assessing ownership of assets such as refrigerators, washing machines, mobile phones, chairs, tables, etc.…”

Social deterministic factors to participation in the National Health Insurance Scheme in the context of rural Ghanaian setting

“…23,24 Variables with low standard deviations tend to carry low weights, such that items that were routinely present or absent had less influence on differentiating SES among households. 25 Each household was assigned an aggregate SES scores.…”

Relative Impact of Multimorbid Chronic Conditions on Health-Related Quality of Life – Results from the MultiCare Cohort Study

“…Since there is no uniform cut-off point for multimorbidity across studies, both two or more and three or more conditions are common criteria [3]. Also, rates of prevalence were found to be higher in primary-care based study populations than in samples drawn from the general population [4], and may depend on the number of conditions taken into consideration [5]. In a German study based on claims data from a large sample, van den Bussche et al [6] found a prevalence of 62.1% for multimorbidity, defined as three or more conditions, among subjects aged 65 years or older and a mean number of 5.8 chronic conditions among these multimorbid subjects.…”