Rapid Responses to:

EDITORIALS: Rosalind Raine, Sylvia Godden, and Martin McKee Information and intelligence for healthy populations BMJ 2006; 332: 1226-1227 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Never mind the data collection – what about the analysis?

Mark Strong, Ravi Maheswaran   (2 June 2006)

Never mind the data collection – what about the analysis? 2 June 2006
Mark Strong, Clinical Lecturer in Public Health Public Health GIS Unit, ScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK, Ravi Maheswaran Send response to journal: Re: Never mind the data collection – what about the analysis?	Raine et al highlight how important the collection of adequate routine public health data is if we are ever to achieve Wanless’s fully engaged scenario. Indeed so, but who will analyse these reams of data, newly available at the touch of a button on the “public health desktops” envisaged by the government?[1] And perhaps even more importantly, who will decide what to analyse in the first place? Routine public health data at the local level are processed mainly within primary care trusts (PCTs). At regional and national levels, data for larger geographical areas are analysed in public health observatories, cancer registries, the Department of Health and various other health service bodies. In all of these organisations the staff who get their hands dirty doing the analysis tend to be in relatively junior positions. This lack of status afforded to the people who really understand the data is the first problem. Those who know what the data can and cannot address do not set the analysis agenda. The second problem is capacity. The questions that routine health data can help to answer are numerous. However, all too often PCT analytical capacity is taken up in the administration of our vast healthcare delivery system. There just isn’t enough time left to ask the data the really interesting and important public health questions. The third problem is complexity. “Basic” questions listed in the Government’s consultation document such as “is specialist health care being provided equitably in this region?”, or “what are the health effects of living in areas with high levels of radon in the ground?”,[1] are anything but basic. Answering such questions often requires a high degree of statistical and epidemiological expertise to make sense of the analysis. Few PCTs possess such expertise. We see the way forward as a scenario where boards and executives are fully engaged in the richness and complexity of routine public health data. In our vision senior analysts will be promoted to director level, and adequate support will be made available for the development of high level statistical and epidemiological skills in every organisation. Without this, numbers will remain a mystery to many decision makers, and we will miss an important opportunity to turn a new wealth of routine health information into real health improvement. 1. www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/LiveConsultations/LiveConsultationsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4131160&chk=uklZtu (accessed 1 June 2006). Competing interests: None declared