DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section A: Indicator comparisons by district 1. Socio-economic Indicators catherine Cosser 1.1 Deprivation index One of the socio-economic indicators used in the <strong>DHB</strong> is a deprivation index. This index is a measure of relative deprivation across districts within South Africa and is a composite measure derived from a set of variables, 1 which are sourced from the 2001 census and 2005 GHS data. Higher values of the deprivation index denote higher levels of social and material deprivation. Further information on the deprivation index can be seen in the appendices. Based on the deprivation index, the 52 districts have been ranked into socio-economic quintiles. The quintiles are labelled 1 to 5 and each contains 20% of all districts, either 10 or 11 districts. Those districts that fall in quintile 5 are the top 20% least deprived (best-off) districts. The 10 districts in quintile 1 contain people with the lowest socio-economic status and are the most deprived (worst off). Figure 1 shows the deprivation index values for all districts in South Africa, and their ranking into socio-economic quintiles. As can be seen, the three most deprived districts are: O.R. Tambo (EC), Alfred Nzo (EC) and Umkhanyakhude (KZN). It is of concern that all three of these districts also score higher on the deprivation index in 2005. Nine of the ten districts in this quintile are also designated as rural development districts. Mopani (LP) is the only district in this group that is not one of the designated rural development districts. Interestingly, four of the five least deprived districts are all in the Western Cape. All of the districts in the top five have also scored lower on the deprivation index in 2005. With regard to movement between quintiles, West Rand (GP), Ekurhuleni (GP), and City of Tshwane (GP) have moved from the 4th quintile into the least deprived 5th quintile. 1 McIntyre D and Okorafor O. Deprivation in South Africa and its potential relevance to resource allocation issues. <strong>Health</strong> Economics Institute, University of Cape Town. Report prepared for National Treasury, Pretoria; 2003. THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST 1
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District Figure 1: Deprivation index and socio-economic quintiles by district Deprivation index, 2005 West Coast Overberg Cape Winelands Namakwa Central Karoo City of Cape Town West Rand City of Johannesburg Ekurhuleni Eden City of Tshwane eThekwini Siyanda Fezile Dabi Sedibeng Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Motheo Pixley ka Seme UMgungundlovu Metsweding Southern Lejweleputswa Cacadu Frances Baard Waterberg Bojanala Xhariep Ehlanzeni Gert Sibande Nkangala Amajuba iLembe Uthungulu Central Kgalagadi Thabo Mofutsanyane Ugu Amathole Sisonke Capricorn Uthukela Vhembe Bophirima Ukhahlamba Mopani Chris Hani Greater Sekhukhune Zululand Bohlabela Umzinyathi Umkhanyakude Alfred Nzo O.R. Tambo Socio-economic quintile 5 – least deprived Socio-economic quintile 4 Socio-economic quintile 3 Socio-economic quintile 2 Socio-economic quintile 1 – most deprived EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA 0 1 2 3 4 5 better Index worse Ranking into socio-economic quintiles provides valuable insights into the gaps that exist between the least deprived (5th quintile) and the most deprived (1st quintile) with regard to primary health care services. 1.2 Access to Water Access to water measures the percentage of households in each district that have access to piped water and is obtained from StatsSA’s General Household Survey 2005. Access to water is used as a single-variable indicator of socio-economic status. THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST
Page 1 and 2: 0 100 200 300 400 500 2006/07
Page 3 and 4: Team for the Preparation of the Dis
Page 5 and 6: Section B - District and province p
Page 7 and 8: Foreword The District Health Barome
Page 9 and 10: Variables included in the analysis
Page 11 and 12: Data quality varies for a number of
Page 13: Figure A: Provincial values affecte
Page 17 and 18: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 65 and 66:
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
126 Indicator Type Demographic and
Page 141 and 142:
Section B: District and Province Pr
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Appendices Appendix 2 Deprivation I
Page 217 and 218:
Appendices Interpreting negative an
Page 219 and 220:
Appendices Appendix 4: Indicator De
Page 221 and 222:
Appendices Group ``Type Level Indic
Page 223 and 224:
Appendices Group ``Type Level Indic
show all

DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?