Table 2 Multiple indicator compilations
Compilation | Description |
|---|---|
WHO: Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool (Urban HEART) [31] | http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/measuring/urbanheart/en/index.html |
This long term project of the WHO Kobe Center and its collaborators provides member states with a tool to assess inequalities in health status in their urban centers. In addition to a core set of health care outcomes (number of indicators [4] and health determinants [8]), it has a set of strongly recommended outcomes (4), physical environment and infrastructure variables (3), social and human development measures (6), economic indicators (3) and governance indicators (2). Since its primary focus is urban, it includes variables not found in many of the other projects (e.g. households served by solid waste management systems; solid fuel use; improved sanitation). | |
Healthy People 2020 (US Department of Health and Human Services) [34] | |
The Healthy People initiative is a 30-year project, updated every 10 years that attempts to track the progress made in population health in the United States. It compares currently available data to a set of predetermined goals to judge that progress. The 26 leading health indicators within 12 topic areas focus on personal behaviors, environmental quality and access to health care. The major effort here is to provide an agenda for prevention, rather than a metric, so that HP2010 is not as germane to the current task, but does provide an exhaustive list of indicators. An historical overview and comprehensive summary of current indicators is found in: | |
A current update may be found at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/leading-health-indicators/Healthy-People-2020-Leading-Health-Indicators%3A-Progress-Update | |
WHO Health Compendium Indicators, 2012 [41] | http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/WHS2012_IndicatorCompendium.pdf |
The Health Compendium Indicators provide the metadata for an array of health indicators that are used in many contexts by WHO. As titled, it is a registry of data and sources, and does not in itself purport to be a set of metrics or indicators. It does, however, provide a wide array of measures that can be incorporated into an urban health metric. | |
Michigan Critical Health Indicators (Michigan Department of Community Health, USA) [32] | http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/state_of_michigan_cities_an_index_of_urb?blog=5 |
This set of indicators was designed to measure the health and health behaviors of Michigan residents. The current report (2011), which is organized by 4 specific health topics and their 28 related measures or indicators, is upbeat. It asserts that, in general, the health of Michigan’s population is improving, with only a few indicators going in the wrong direction (adult obesity, diabetes, chlamydial infection), and a number of health disparities were documented. The report is a good demonstration of the use of health metrics in the longitudinal analysis of population health trends. It does not provide a single, or composite metric, and is not focused exclusively on urban areas. | |
Community Health Status Indicators (US Department of Health and Human Services) [35] | |
The CHSI provides an online interactive site for United States counties to get information about themselves. It includes demographics, summary health measures (life expectancy, all-cause mortality, self-rated health status, and average number of unhealthy days), leading causes of death, vital statistics, environmental health, preventive services, risk factors, and access to care. It provides a county with the data elements compared to the US national average, dividing the results in 4 quadrants, so that a county can see for which measures it is doing better or worse than the national average. This is an interesting approach that provides an overview to a small population unit of how it is doing compared to everyone else. It is not specifically urban, and does not provide a single or composite measure, but is a useful approach and reflects the techniques used by a number of international sites. | |
Environmental Health Indicators (CDC, USA) [37] | |
The US CDC maintains a site for Environmental Public Health Indicators (EPHI), with a larger set of metrics, and a smaller set of core indicators. The purpose is to provide a framework for state and local health departments to make a comprehensive assessment of environmental hazards. The actual measurements, and their analysis and synthesis, are to be obtained by the agency using the framework. In this regard then, the site provides a useful set of metrics, but does not pursue data collection, analysis, or judgments itself. | |
Environmental Health Indicators (California, USA) [38] | |
The California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch, compiled a set of 18 indicators that overlap to a large extent with Healthy People 2010 and with the WHO frameworks. The list focuses on environmental hazards, but includes measures on population, demographics, health, health outcomes, and some specific measures related to California. It provides little that is new or original, but the discussion of each measure provides a good summary for the state. | |
National Women’s Health Indicators Database (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) [39] | |
The site uses measures from a variety of other efforts. It is an assemblage of metrics that relate primarily to women’s health, but it does not break new ground. The measures are derived from other sites. | |
European Urban Health Indicators System [75] | |
This project is an ongoing development of a set of comparable urban health indicators in 60 urban areas of Europe. It uses a newly developed health survey instrument and other routinely available data (such as mortality statistics). It focuses specifically on urban area data to “provide tools for evidence based policy.” It is a work in progress, and will have as its product a wide array of tools and metrics for cross sectional and longitudinal assessment. The project does not attempt to provide a single urban metric or composite statistic, but rather to provide a basis for ongoing analysis and decision making with complex data. Its emphasis on the development of local perspective creates important similarities with Urban HEART. Euro-URHIS 2, recently completed, has begun publication of its findings. | |
Sustainable Communities Index (San Francisco, USA) [33] | |
The San Francisco Department of Health has created a website that can be used as a workbook for assessing local health and environment status. This website provides a sophisticated and comprehensive workbook of all the major items related to urban health and environment. Neighborhoods of metrics available through the Census and through other public sources). This grouping attempts to connect public health concerns to urban development planning. There are two primary indicators of Health Systems along with numerous others grouped under Environment, Transportation, Community Cohesion, Public Realm, Education, Housing and Economy. | |
Cities Environment Report on the Internet (CEROI) [36] | |
CEROI is a Norwegian-based organization tasked with providing cities sound environmental information for decision making. To that end, it prepared a common set of 90 indicators. These are organized in a set of 29 core areas, and was built on prior efforts by a number of European entities: European Common Indicators; European Environmental Agency indicators; European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working conditions; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives; and United National Center for Human Settlements. Both the focal areas and the list of indicators are concordant with many of the other major lists already cited. | |
UN HABITAT : Habitat Agenda Urban Indicators [76] | http://ww2.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/documents/urban_indicators_guidelines.pdf |
A part of the Millennium Developmental Goals (MDG), the UN HABITAT developed a set of Habitat Agenda Urban Indicators: 20 key indicators; 9 check lists; and 13 extensive indicators. For ease of data collections, they are grouped into two clusters: those obtained from censuses, household surveys, DHS surveys and Multiple Indicators Cluster Surveys (see below); and those from other sources, including official records, housing boards, financial institutions, police, NGOs, and informed estimates. This is targeted specifically to cities, and provides direct instruction to localities on how to collect information to serve the 8 MDG areas. The listing itself is a comprehensive look at the built environment, but also includes several measures on social development, environmental management, economic development and governance. | |
World Development Indicators [43] | |
The World Bank has developed a set of 508 indicators covering 217 countries for the period from 1960 to 2013. These 50 years are a treasure trove of economic data, but there are as well a set of 36 health indicators and 17 urban indicators. It appears that no attempt has been made at further amalgamation of these variables, but their high concordance with other groupings, and the breadth and depth of the data make them an invaluable resource. | |
UNICEF: Data: Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women [40] | |
UNICEF supports countries in collecting data related to children and women through Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), currently in its fifth iteration. The wealth of data available on children and women’s health make this a valuable source for construction of an index, though that does not appear to be part of the overall agenda of this activity. Many of the variables related to children and attendant issues may be found in the other major projects as well. |