Poor correlation with Jarman index may be due to changes in deprivation since 1981

BMJ 1995;310:1068 (22 April)

Letters

Poor correlation with Jarman index may be due to changes in deprivation since 1981

EDITOR,--David C E F Lloyd and colleagues compare three deprivationindices--the Jarman, Townsend, and Carstairs indices--and showthat the correlation between the Jarman index and the two otherindices is not as good as that between the Townsend and Carstairsindices themselves.¹ I note that the Townsend and Carstairsindices were based on data for 1991 whereas the Jarman indexwas based on data for 1981. We should not necessarily concludethat the Jarman index is less good. Perhaps the pattern of deprivationhas changed over the past 10 years, explaining the slightlyworse correlation between the Jarman index and the Townsendand Carstairs indices.

General practice retainer Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides

R S James

Lloyd DCEF, Harris CM, Clucas DW. Low income scheme index: a new deprivation scale based on prescribing in general practice. BMJ 1995;310:165-70. (21 January.) [Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Low income scheme index: a new deprivation scale based on prescribing in general practice: David C E F Lloyd, Conrad M Harris, and David W Clucas
BMJ 1995 310: 165-169. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Wilson, R. P H, Hatcher, J., Barton, S., Walley, T. (1996). Influences of practice characteristics on prescribing in fundholding and non-fundholding general practices: an observational study. BMJ 313: 595-599 [Abstract] [Full text]
Craft, N. (1995). Letter fraud. BMJ 311: 523-524 [Full text]