Abstract

Six social deprivation and vulnerability indices (SVI, SDI, NSS7, FDep, ICE) were calculated using the the US Census 2020 5-year American Community Survey data at the census block group, census tract and county geographical levels.

Methodology

https://redivis.com/fileUploads/561337d5-79ab-4cf6-abd2-a00102e2ef82%3E" alt="image.png">

https://redivis.com/fileUploads/c4237898-9ff7-49dc-a5c3-b2a3f71ba087%3E" alt="image.png">

https://redivis.com/fileUploads/1ce425a5-efc0-4476-bd70-420beabd26c8%3E" alt="image.png">

https://redivis.com/fileUploads/e7a4a8a6-05ed-4741-af5b-114de5453ca6%3E" alt="image.png">

https://redivis.com/fileUploads/17544ea1-d3e7-4589-98a8-1711e820e98a%3E" alt="image.png">

https://redivis.com/fileUploads/4393f66f-4a9a-4203-b18d-ebf43929777e%3E" alt="Screen Shot 2022-10-14 at 2.51.17 PM.png">

The Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD) is an area-based index which used 2016 Census of Population microdata to measure four key dimensions of deprivation at the dissemination area (DA)-level: residential instability, economic dependency, situational vulnerability and ethno-cultural composition. Using factor analysis, DA-level factor scores were calculated for each dimension. Within a dimension, ordered scores were assigned a quintile value, 1 through 5, where 1 represents the least deprived and 5 represents the most deprived. The CIMD allows for an understanding of inequalities in various measures of health and social well-being. While it is a geographically-based index of deprivation and marginalization, it can also be used as a proxy for an individual. The CIMD has the potential to be widely used by researchers on a variety of topics related to socio-economic research. Other uses for the index may include: policy planning and evaluation, or resource allocation.

A fileset containing excel spreadsheets allowing researchers to map area-deprivation using the IMD.

Social deprivation indices calculated using the 2020 5-year American Community Survey at the census block group level.

This dataset contains the main ranking for the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2010. This dataset puts the 32,482 LSOAs into a rank order based on their 2010 IMD score. A rank of 1 is the most deprived.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report 'The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report'.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Barriers to Housing and Services domain.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report 'The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report'.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

This dataset contains the scores underlying the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2010. These figures combine values of many indicators into a single score that indicates the overall level of deprivation in each LSOA. A high number indicates a high level of deprivation.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report 'The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report'.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Score for each LSOA in the Living Environment Deprivation domain.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report 'The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report'.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

Census Lower Super Output Area boundaries as of 2011, with indices of multiple deprivation statistics (2019)

This dataset contains the scores underlying the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2007. These figures combine values of many indicators into a single score that indicates the overall level of deprivation in each LSOA. A high number indicates a high level of deprivation.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2007 indices are for the year 2005.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2007) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the Guidance document.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

The Alberta Survey program is a telephone conducted survey of Albertans, to collect data on specific determinants of health to support the creation of material and social deprivation indices, and assess their effects on health. This dataset contains individual level survey response details for the category Canadian Deprivation Index (CDI), along with a supporting document containing a column description for this dataset. Aggregate level datasets for select determinants based upon the ACHS are also available.

BackgroundAdverse socioeconomic conditions at the individual and regional levels are associated with an increased risk of mortality. However, few studies have examined this relationship using multilevel analysis and, if so, only within a single country. This study aimed to examine this relationship using data from several European countries.MethodsIndividual-level data were obtained from Waves 5 to 9 of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, while regional-level data were obtained from the Luxembourg Income Study Database. Cox regression analysis with gamma-shared frailty and a random intercept for country of residence was used to examine the association between individual mortality from all causes, cancer, heart attack, and stroke and measures of socioeconomic deprivation at the individual level, including material and social deprivation indices, and at the area level, including the Gini index.ResultsThe risk of mortality from all causes was increased for respondents with material deprivation (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.77, 95% CI = [1.60, 1.96]) and social deprivation (HR = 7.63, 95% CI = [6.42, 9.07]) compared with those without. A similar association was observed between individual deprivation and the risk of mortality from cancer, heart attack, or stroke. Regional deprivation had a modest contextual effect on the individual risk of death from all causes and cancer. However, when individual-level deprivation was included in the models, no contextual effects were found.ConclusionThe results indicate that individual socioeconomic conditions significantly predict causes of death in older European adults, with those with material deprivation and social deprivation having a higher risk of death from all causes, including cancer, heart attack, and stroke, while the Gini index has a minimal effect, although the Gini index reflects regional disparities across Europe.

Several individual-based social deprivation and vulnerability indices have been developed to measure the negative impact of low socioeconomic status on health outcomes. However, their variables and measurable characteristics have not been unequivocally assessed. A comprehensive database literature scoping review was performed to identify all individual-based social deprivation and vulnerability indices. Area-based indices and those developed for pediatric populations were excluded. Data were extracted from all eligible studies and their methodology was assessed with quality criteria. A total of 14 indices were identified, of which 64% (9/14) measured social deprivation and 36% (5/14) measured socioeconomic vulnerability. Sum of weights was the most common scoring system, present in 43% (6/14) of all indices, with no exclusive domains to either vulnerability or deprivation indices. A total of 83 different variables were identified; a very frequent variable (29%; 5/14) related to an individual’s social relationships was “seen any family or friends or neighbors.” Only five deprivation indices reported a specific internal consistency measure, while no indices reported data on reproducibility. This is the first scoping review of individual-based deprivation and vulnerability indices, which may be used interchangeably when measuring the impact of SES on health outcomes.

The data here shows indicator data (that underlies the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation or WIMD), broken down by age. WIMD is the Welsh Government’s official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in Wales. It is designed to identify small areas where there are the highest concentrations of several different types of deprivation. The full index is only updated every 4 to 5 years but some of the indicators are updated in the interim period. Most indicators are available down to Lower Super Output Area level. This is a geography that is built from census data – it aims to outline small areas with a population between 1,000 and 3,000 people.

Pobal HP Deprivation Index. Published by Dublinked.ie. Available under the license cc-by (CC-BY-4.0).Pobal HP Deprivation Index at Electoral Districts (ED) level. This index data is calculated as the ED level aggregates from the 2006 and 2011 Census Small Area (SA) level data, which is available from http://maps.pobal.ie/ . The index is based on the combination of three dimensions of relative affluence and deprivation: Demographic Profile, Social Class Composition and Labour Market Situation. For more information see http://trutzhaase.eu/ ...

Ranking of LSOAs according to their score in the Living Environment Deprivation domain.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the report 'The English Indices of Deprivation 2010: Technical Report'.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.

The deprivation index was designed in the late 1990s in order to measure the deprivation of Quebecers on a small geographic scale. It is used for the purposes of researching and monitoring trends on social inequalities in health, developing policies and programs, allocating resources, and evaluating services. It is composed of a material dimension and a social dimension that can be analyzed separately or in combination. The index includes six indicators, all from the 2021 census and calculated on the basis of dissemination areas (DAs). The geographic file includes the national (province of Quebec), regional (health regions (RSS)), and local (territorial service networks (RTS), local service networks (RLS) and local community service centers (CLSC)) versions of the deprivation index. In cases where a broadcast area (AD) straddles two territories (in the RTS, RLS and CLSC versions of the file), it is the AD with the largest proportion of the population that determines which RTS, RLS or CLSC is selected in order to have a single deprivation index value per AD for mapping. All results by AD are available in the equivalence table on the Web site of the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec (INSPQ). For more information on the deprivation index, you can consult The Material and Social Deprivation Index: in brief.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

The National Material and Social Deprivation Indices (MSDI) for all Canadian Census enumeration areas (now called dissemination areas) were downloaded July 21, 2017 by CANUE staff from the INSPQ website. The indices were provided in Excel spreadsheets named TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada1991.xlxs; TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada1996.xlxs; TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada2001.xlxs; TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada2006.xlxs; andTableEquivalenceCompleteCanada2011.xlxs. Data for 2016 were provided directly to CANUE by INSPQ.ArcGIS was used by CANUE staff to associate the single link DMTI Spatial postal codes to the Statistics Canada enumeration/dissemination area boundary file, and then spatially join the MSDI data to DMTI single link postal codes using enumeration or dissemination area as a unique identifier. There may be many postal codes within a single enumeration or dissemination area - these will have the same index values. CANUE staff translated the variable names from French to English and added a distance attribute (maximum distance from postal code centroid to boundary of census area).

The National Material and Social Deprivation Indices (MSDI) for all Canadian Census enumeration areas (now called dissemination areas) were downloaded July 21, 2017 by CANUE staff from the INSPQ website. The indices were provided in Excel spreadsheets named TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada1991.xlxs; TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada1996.xlxs; TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada2001.xlxs; TableEquivalenceCompleteCanada2006.xlxs; andTableEquivalenceCompleteCanada2011.xlxs. Data for 2016 were provided directly to CANUE by INSPQ.ArcGIS was used by CANUE staff to associate the single link DMTI Spatial postal codes to the Statistics Canada enumeration/dissemination area boundary file, and then spatially join the MSDI data to DMTI single link postal codes using enumeration or dissemination area as a unique identifier. There may be many postal codes within a single enumeration or dissemination area - these will have the same index values. CANUE staff translated the variable names from French to English and added a distance attribute (maximum distance from postal code centroid to boundary of census area).