02.02.2013 Views

Health Inequities in Manitoba: Is the Socioeconomic Gap

Health Inequities in Manitoba: Is the Socioeconomic Gap

Health Inequities in Manitoba: Is the Socioeconomic Gap

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Health</strong> <strong>Inequities</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Manitoba</strong>: <strong>Is</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Socioeconomic</strong> <strong>Gap</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Health</strong> Widen<strong>in</strong>g or Narrow<strong>in</strong>g Over Time?<br />

Chapter 2: A Description of <strong>the</strong> Neighbourhood Income<br />

Qu<strong>in</strong>tiles us<strong>in</strong>g Census Data<br />

This report analyses various health and social <strong>in</strong>dicators over time by us<strong>in</strong>g neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come<br />

qu<strong>in</strong>tiles as a proxy for socioeconomic status. Neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tiles divide <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manitoba</strong><br />

population <strong>in</strong>to five neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come groups (from lowest neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come to highest<br />

neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come) so that approximately 20% of <strong>the</strong> population is <strong>in</strong> each group. They are<br />

created with<strong>in</strong> two population groups: urban (W<strong>in</strong>nipeg and Brandon) and rural (o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Manitoba</strong> areas).<br />

The <strong>in</strong>dicator analyses <strong>in</strong> Chapters 3 through 8 use <strong>the</strong> Data Repository housed at MCHP, <strong>in</strong> which<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals are assigned an neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tile based upon <strong>the</strong>ir postal code via <strong>the</strong> Postal<br />

Code Conversion File (PCCF). The PCCF is provided by Statistics Canada and l<strong>in</strong>ks postal codes to Census<br />

Dissem<strong>in</strong>ation Areas (DA). In <strong>the</strong> Census, DAs are <strong>the</strong> smallest geographical areas available for which<br />

all census data are dissem<strong>in</strong>ated. (Census Divisions and Sub–divisions are larger geographical areas<br />

available <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Census.) DAs usually conta<strong>in</strong> between 400–700 people and are approximately <strong>the</strong> size of<br />

one city block <strong>in</strong> urban centres. In this chapter, we wish to explore census data <strong>in</strong>dicators not available<br />

<strong>in</strong> Repository such as <strong>the</strong> percent of <strong>the</strong> population who are of aborig<strong>in</strong>al orig<strong>in</strong> or <strong>the</strong> percent who are<br />

immigrants. However, we cannot simply work backwards to map DAs onto <strong>the</strong>ir correspond<strong>in</strong>g postal<br />

codes to assign neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tiles to DAs because DAs can cover more or less area than<br />

postal codes with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same geographical space, and overlapp<strong>in</strong>g can occur. As such, this chapter has<br />

used a slightly different methodology to assign neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tiles to geographical areas.<br />

Tables and graphs <strong>in</strong> this chapter characterize <strong>in</strong>formation from <strong>the</strong> 1986, 1996, and 2006 census<br />

by neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tile. Dissem<strong>in</strong>ation areas (formally enumeration areas prior to 2001)<br />

are assigned to a neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tile based on <strong>the</strong> average household <strong>in</strong>come cut–offs<br />

developed by MCHP dur<strong>in</strong>g creation of <strong>the</strong> qu<strong>in</strong>tiles. Each neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tile based on<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>Manitoba</strong> population, U1 through to U5 and R1 through to R5, have correspond<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>imum and<br />

maximum average household <strong>in</strong>come values. To classify DAs to one of <strong>the</strong> neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come<br />

qu<strong>in</strong>tiles, each DA was first determ<strong>in</strong>ed to be ei<strong>the</strong>r urban (W<strong>in</strong>nipeg and Brandon) or rural; and <strong>the</strong>n<br />

<strong>the</strong> DA was sorted <strong>in</strong>to one of <strong>the</strong> qu<strong>in</strong>tiles based on where <strong>the</strong> average household <strong>in</strong>come of that<br />

DA lay with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cut–offs. For DAs with miss<strong>in</strong>g or suppressed <strong>in</strong>come, imputation for an average<br />

household <strong>in</strong>come was attempted. Where possible, <strong>the</strong> Census Sub–Division’s (CSD) average household<br />

<strong>in</strong>come was used to approximate <strong>the</strong> DA’s average household <strong>in</strong>come. However, DAs associated to<br />

First Nation communities often have a miss<strong>in</strong>g average household <strong>in</strong>come at both <strong>the</strong> DA and CSD<br />

level. Therefore, a different imputation was done; <strong>the</strong> mean household <strong>in</strong>come for <strong>the</strong> North and South<br />

First Nation communities were calculated and <strong>the</strong>n assigned to each North and South First Nation DA<br />

respectively. After <strong>the</strong>se two rounds of imputations, any rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g DAs with miss<strong>in</strong>g or suppressed<br />

<strong>in</strong>come were placed <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> not found (NF) <strong>in</strong>come group. Despite be<strong>in</strong>g counter–<strong>in</strong>tuitive, this<br />

method produced <strong>the</strong> best possible estimates for classify<strong>in</strong>g DAs <strong>in</strong>to neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tiles<br />

given <strong>the</strong> limitations with apply<strong>in</strong>g MCHP Data Repository methods to <strong>the</strong> census data. Once all DAs<br />

were converted <strong>in</strong>to rural and urban neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tiles, a weighted percentage was<br />

calculated for each of <strong>the</strong> census characteristics by neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tile.<br />

There are several limitations to this chapter’s <strong>in</strong>formation. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> census, <strong>Manitoba</strong>’s<br />

population is approximately 3% smaller than is found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Repository at MCHP, which could lead to<br />

slightly different percent of <strong>the</strong> population <strong>in</strong> each neighbourhood <strong>in</strong>come qu<strong>in</strong>tile. The 2006 census<br />

conta<strong>in</strong>ed 2,152 DAs for <strong>Manitoba</strong>. Thirty–seven DAs had an average household <strong>in</strong>come that was<br />

<strong>Manitoba</strong> Centre for <strong>Health</strong> Policy 15

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!