Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Population Health Metrics
Published in: Population Health Metrics 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Research

The use of income information of census enumeration area as a proxy for the household income in a household survey

Authors: Fabio S Gomes, Mauricio TL Vasconcellos, Luiz A Anjos

Published in: Population Health Metrics | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Some of the Census Enumeration Areas' (CEA) information may help planning the sample of population studies but it can also be used for some analyses that require information that is more difficult to obtain at the individual or household level, such as income. This paper verifies if the income information of CEA can be used as a proxy for household income in a household survey.

Methods

A population-based survey conducted from January to December 2003 obtained data from a probabilistic sample of 1,734 households of Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Uniform semi-association models were adjusted in order to obtain information about the agreement/disagreement structure of data. The distribution of nutritional status categories of the population of Niterói according to income quintiles was performed using both CEA- and household-level income measures and then compared using Wald statistics for homogeneity. Body mass index was calculated using body mass and stature data measured in the households and then used to define nutritional status categories according to the World Health Organization. All estimates and statistics were calculated accounting for the structural information of the sample design and a significance level lower than 5% was adopted.

Results

The classification of households in the quintiles of household income was associated with the classification of these households in the quintiles of CEA income. The distribution of the nutritional status categories in all income quintiles did not differ significantly according to the source of income information (household or CEA) used in the definition of quintiles.

Conclusion

The structure of agreement/disagreement between quintiles of the household's monthly per capita income and quintiles of the head-of-household's mean nominal monthly income of the CEA, as well as the results produced by these measures when they were associated with the nutritional status of the population, showed that the CEA's income information can be used when income information at the individual or household levels is not available.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Health Organization (WHO), Secretariat of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health: Action on the social determinants of health: learning from previous experiences. Geneva 2005.
2.
WHO: The World Health Report 2003. Shaping the future. Geneva 2003.
3.
Evans T, Whitehead M, Diderichsen F, Bhuiya A, Wirth M, Eds: Challenging inequities in health: from ethics to action. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
4.
Leon DA, Walt G, Eds: Poverty, inequality and health: an international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
5.
Kim JY, Millen JV, Irwin A, Gershman J, Eds: Dying for growth: global inequality and the health of the poor. Monroe: Common Courage Press; 2000.
6.
WHO, Executive Board EB115/35: Note by the Secretariat. In 115th Session: 25 November 2004; Geneva. the Commission on Social Determinants of Health: WHO; 2004:1-3.
7.
8.
Barros RP, Cury S, Ulyssea G: A desigualdade de renda no Brasil encontra-se subestimada? Uma análise comparativa com base na PNAD, na POF e nas Contas Nacionais. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada; 2007.
9.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística: Censo Demográfico 2000: agregado por setores censitários dos resultados do universo. Rio de Janeiro; 2003.
10.
Diez Roux AV, Kiefe CI, Jacobs DR Jr, Haan M, Jackson SA, Nieto FJ, Paton CC, Schulz R: Area characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic position indicators in three population-based epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol 2001, 11: 395-405. 10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00221-6CrossRefPubMed
11.
Diez Roux AV, Merkin SS, Hannan P, Jacobs DR, Kiefe CI: Area characteristics, individual-level socioeconomic indicators, and smoking in young adults. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 157: 315-326. 10.1093/aje/kwf207CrossRefPubMed
12.
Geronimus AT, Bound J: Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. Am J Epidemiol 1998, 148: 475-486.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Demissie K, Hanley JA, Menzies D, Joseph L, Ernst P: Agreement in measuring socio-economic status: area-based versus individual measures. Chronic Dis Can 2000, 21: 1-7.PubMed
14.
Hanley GE, Morgan S: On the validity of area-based income measures to proxy household income. BMC Health Services Research 2008, 8: 1472-6963. 10.1186/1472-6963-8-79CrossRef
15.
Janssen I, Boyce WF, Simpson K, Pickett W: Influence of individual- and area-level measures of socioeconomic status on obesity, unhealthy eating, and physical inactivity in Canadian adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 2006, 83: 139-145. 10.1183/09031936.03.00091202PubMed
16.
Southern DA, McLaren L, Hawe P, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA: Individual-level and neighborhood-level income measures: agreement and association with outcomes in a cardiac disease cohort. Med Care 2005, 43: 1116-1122. 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182517.57235.6dCrossRefPubMed
17.
Cesaroni G, Farchi S, Davoli M, Forastiere F, Perucci CA: Individual and area-based indicators of socioeconomic status and childhood asthma. Eur Respir J 2003, 22: 619-624. 10.1016/j.puhe.2005.02.008CrossRefPubMed
18.
Domínguez-Berjón F, Borrell C, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Pastor V: The usefulness of area-based socioeconomic measures to monitor social inequalities in health in Southern Europe. Eur J Public Health 2006, 16: 54-61. 10.1093/biomet/33.3.222CrossRefPubMed
19.
Walker AE, Becker NG: Health inequalities across socio-economic groups: comparing geographic-area-based and individual-based indicators. Public Health 2005, 119: 1097-1104. 10.1590/S0102-311X2005000700010CrossRefPubMed
20.
Haldane JBS: On the method of estimating frequencies. Biometrika 1945, 33: 222-225. 10.1093/biomet/33.3.222CrossRefPubMed
21.
Vasconcellos MT, Silva PL, Szwarcwald CL: Sampling design for the World Health Survey in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 2005, 21: 89-99. 10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRefPubMed
22.
Silva PLN: Calibration estimation: when and why, how much and how. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2004.
23.
Deville JC, Särndal CE: Calibration estimators in survey sampling. J Am Stat Assoc 1992, 87: 376-382. 10.2307/2290268CrossRef
24.
Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960, 20: 37-46. 10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRef
25.
Goodman LA: Simple models for the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories. J Am Stat Assoc 1979, 74: 537-552. 10.2307/2286971CrossRef
26.
Silva EF, Pereira MG: Rating of the structures of agreement and disagreement in reliability studies. Rev Saude Publica 1998, 32: 383-393. 10.1590/S0034-89101998000400012CrossRefPubMed
27.
Darroch J, McCloud PI: Category of distinguishability and observer agreement. Aust J Stat 1986, 28: 371-388. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.1986.tb00709.xCrossRef
28.
Cohen J: Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968, 70: 213-220. 10.1037/h0026256CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kendall MG: Rank correlation methods. 4th edition. London: Charles Griffin & Company; 1970.
30.
Krippendorff K: Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1980.
31.
Spearman C: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Amer J Psychol 1904, 15: 72-101. 10.2307/1412159CrossRef
32.
Pessoa DGC, Silva PLN, Eds: Análise de dados amostrais complexos. São Paulo: Associação Brasileira de Estatística; 1998.
33.
Bossan FM, Anjos LA, Vasconcellos MTL, Wahrlich V: Nutritional status of the adult population in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: the Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Health Survey. Cad Saude Publica 2007, 23: 1867-1876. 10.1191/096228098672090967CrossRefPubMed
34.
De Onis M, Onyango AW, Borghi E, Siyam A, Nishida C, Siekmann J: Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bull World Health Organ 2007, 85: 660-667. 10.2471/BLT.07.043497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
WHO: Physical status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Technical Report Series 854. Geneva 1995.
36.
R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2007.
37.
Shrout PE: Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res 1998, 7: 301-317. 10.1068/a160017CrossRefPubMed
38.
Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310CrossRefPubMed
39.
Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M, Posner S: Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA 2005, 294: 2879-2888. 10.1001/jama.294.22.2879CrossRefPubMed
40.
Openshaw S: Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environ Plan A 1984, 16: 17-31. 10.1068/a160017CrossRefPubMed
41.
Openshaw S: The modifiable areal unit problem. Concepts and techniques in modern geography. Norwich: Geo Books; 1984.
42.
Tagashira N, Okabe A: The modifiable areal unit problem in a regression model whose independent variable is a distance from a predetermined point. Geogr Anal 2002, 34: 1-20. 10.1353/geo.2002.0006
Metadata
Title
The use of income information of census enumeration area as a proxy for the household income in a household survey
Authors
Fabio S Gomes
Mauricio TL Vasconcellos
Luiz A Anjos
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Population Health Metrics / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7954
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-7-14

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Population Health Metrics 1/2009 Go to the issue

Research

Assessing the repeatability of verbal autopsy for determining cause of death: two case studies among women of reproductive age in Burkina Faso and Indonesia

Research

The association of state per capita income and military service deaths in the Vietnam and Iraq wars

Research

Diabetes prevalence and diagnosis in US states: analysis of health surveys

Research

Temporal analysis of the incidence of meningitis in the Tehran metropolitan area, 1999-2005

Research

Replication of an empirical approach to delineate the heterogeneity of chronic unexplained fatigue

Research

Ethnic differences in cancer incidence in Estonia: two cross-sectional unlinked census-based cancer incidence analyses