MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392049749 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-17984-2

Selective under-representation of Pacific peoples in population estimates for health indicator measurements in Aotearoa New Zealand misinforms policy making

2024· article· en· W4392049749 on OpenAlexaff
Gerard J.B. Sonder, Corina Grey, Debbie Ryan, Jacqueline Cumming, Andrew Sporle, Philip C. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusAotearoaPacific islandersPopulationGeographyAmerican Community SurveyBiostatisticsEthnic groupPublic healthHealth equityDemographyHealth careMedicineSocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Census of Populations and Dwellings' is the five yearly population count of Aotearoa New Zealand. Best available populations (BAP) are subnational projections based on census data and demographic assumptions developed for healthcare planning and funding allocation but are also used as the denominator for health indicator monitoring. Pacific people are systematically undercounted, but the impact on health statistics is not well studied. For COVID-19 vaccination coverage, health service user (HSU) data were considered a more reliable denominator than BAP but introduced new biases. We aimed to understand how the choice of denominator population impacts estimates of population size and health system performance for Pacific people at a local level. METHODS: We described how declining census response rates affected population data quality. We compared BAP and HSU data at district level. For the indicators 'access to primary care' and 'cervical cancer screening uptake' we replaced currently used BAP denominators with HSU and examined the impact for different ethnic groups in different geographic districts. RESULTS: Overall Census 2018 response declined by 10%, but for Māori and Pacific people by 21% and 23%, respectively. This inequitably affected BAP accuracy. Census undercount was highest in the district with the largest Pacific populations, where HSU exceeded BAP most. Notably, 'access to primary care' for Pacific people in this district consistently exceeds 100%. Using BAP, both health indicators are currently estimated as highest for Pacific people compared to other ethnic groups, but when based on HSU, they dropped to lowest. Similar, but less pronounced trends occurred in other districts. Changes in trends over time for both indicators coincided mostly with adjustments in BAP, rather than changes in the numerators. CONCLUSIONS: The current use of BAP denominators for health statistics does not enable reliable monitoring of key health indicators for Pacific people. HSU denominators are also unsuitable for monitoring health. Exploring the feasibility of a real-time population register is strongly recommended as a new, transparent, way of obtaining more reliable, timely population data to guide policymaking and underpin a more equitable health system under the health reforms. Meanwhile, reporting of ethnic specific outcomes need to include a clear assessment of the potential for bias due to inaccurate population estimates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicCensus and Population Estimation→French-language works237,207→