United States US: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data was reported at 10.790 % in 2017. United States US: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data is updated yearly, averaging 10.790 % from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2017, with 1 observations. United States US: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank: Health Statistics. Diabetes prevalence refers to the percentage of people ages 20-79 who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.; ; International Diabetes Federation, Diabetes Atlas.; Weighted average;

Population-based county-level estimates for diagnosed (DDP), undiagnosed (UDP), and total diabetes prevalence (TDP) were acquired from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) for the years 2004-2012 (Evaluation 2017). Prevalence estimates were calculated using a two-stage approach. The first stage used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data to predict high fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (≥126 mg/dL) and/or hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels (≥6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) based on self-reported demographic and behavioral characteristics (Dwyer-Lindgren, Mackenbach et al. 2016). This model was then applied to Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to impute high FPG and/or A1C status for each BRFSS respondent (Dwyer-Lindgren, Mackenbach et al. 2016). The second stage used the imputed BRFSS data to fit a series of small area models, which were used to predict the county-level prevalence of each of the diabetes-related outcomes (Dwyer-Lindgren, Mackenbach et al. 2016). Diagnosed diabetes was defined as the proportion of adults (age 20+ years) who reported a previous diabetes diagnosis, represented as an age-standardized prevalence percentage. Undiagnosed diabetes was defined as proportion of adults (age 20+ years) who have a high FPG or HbA1C but did not report a previous diagnosis of diabetes. Total diabetes was defined as the proportion of adults (age 20+ years) who reported a previous diabetes diagnosis and/or had a high FPG/HbA1C. The age-standardized diabetes prevalence (%) was used as the outcome. The EQI was constructed for 2000-2005 for all US counties and is composed of five domains (air, water, built, land, and sociodemographic), each composed of variables to represent the environmental quality of that domain. Domain-specific EQIs were developed using principal components analysis (PCA) to reduce these variables within each domain while the overall EQI was constructed from a second PCA from these individual domains (L. C. Messer et al., 2014). To account for differences in environment across rural and urban counties, the overall and domain-specific EQIs were stratified by rural urban continuum codes (RUCCs) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). This dataset is not publicly accessible because: EPA cannot release personally identifiable information regarding living individuals, according to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This dataset contains information about human research subjects. Because there is potential to identify individual participants and disclose personal information, either alone or in combination with other datasets, individual level data are not appropriate to post for public access. Restricted access may be granted to authorized persons by contacting the party listed. It can be accessed through the following means: Human health data are not available publicly. EQI data are available at: https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/NHEERL/EQI. Format: Data are stored as csv files. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Jagai, J., A. Krajewski, S. Shaikh, D. Lobdell, and R. Sargis. Association between environmental quality and diabetes in the U.S.A.. Journal of Diabetes Investigation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 11(2): 315-324, (2020).

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of diabetes mellitus in persons (aged 17+). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to diabetes mellitus in persons (aged 17+).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (aged 17+) with diabetes mellitus was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with diabetes mellitus was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with depression, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have diabetes mellitusB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have diabetes mellitusAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have diabetes mellitus, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from diabetes mellitus, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with diabetes mellitus within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of diabetes mellitus, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of diabetes mellitus.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

Number and percentage of persons having been diagnosed with diabetes, by age group and sex.

Ireland IE: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data was reported at 3.280 % in 2017. Ireland IE: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data is updated yearly, averaging 3.280 % from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2017, with 1 observations. Ireland IE: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Ireland – Table IE.World Bank: Health Statistics. Diabetes prevalence refers to the percentage of people ages 20-79 who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.; ; International Diabetes Federation, Diabetes Atlas.; Weighted average;

Singapore SG: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data was reported at 10.990 % in 2017. Singapore SG: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data is updated yearly, averaging 10.990 % from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2017, with 1 observations. Singapore SG: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Singapore – Table SG.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Diabetes prevalence refers to the percentage of people ages 20-79 who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.; ; International Diabetes Federation, Diabetes Atlas.; Weighted average;

This dataset presents information on age-sex specific prevalence rates of diabetes by First Nations status for Alberta and five Alberta Health Services (AHS) continuum zones, expressed as a percentage.

This is a source dataset for a Let's Get Healthy California indicator at https://letsgethealthy.ca.gov/. Adult smoking prevalence in California, males and females aged 18+, starting in 2012. Caution must be used when comparing the percentages of smokers over time as the definition of ‘current smoker’ was broadened in 1996, and the survey methods were changed in 2012. Current cigarette smoking is defined as having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in lifetime and now smoking every day or some days. Due to the methodology change in 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend not conducting analyses where estimates from 1984 – 2011 are compared with analyses using the new methodology, beginning in 2012. This includes analyses examining trends and changes over time. (For more information, please see the narrative description.) The California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an on-going telephone survey of randomly selected adults, which collects information on a wide variety of health-related behaviors and preventive health practices related to the leading causes of death and disability such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and injuries. Data are collected monthly from a random sample of the California population aged 18 years and older. The BRFSS is conducted by Public Health Survey Research Program of California State University, Sacramento under contract from CDPH. The survey has been conducted since 1984 by the California Department of Public Health in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2012, the survey methodology of the California BRFSS changed significantly so that the survey would be more representative of the general population. Several changes were implemented: 1) the survey became dual-frame, with both cell and landline random-digit dial components, 2) residents of college housing were eligible to complete the BRFSS, and 3) raking or iterative proportional fitting was used to calculate the survey weights. Due to these changes, estimates from 1984 – 2011 are not comparable to estimates from 2012 and beyond. Center for Disease Control and Policy (CDC) and recommend not conducting analyses where estimates from 1984 – 2011 are compared with analyses using the new methodology, beginning in 2012. This includes analyses examining trends and changes over time.Current cigarette smoking was defined as having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in lifetime and now smoking every day or some days. Prior to 1996, the definition of current cigarettes smoking was having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in lifetime and smoking now.

South Africa ZA: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data was reported at 5.520 % in 2017. South Africa ZA: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data is updated yearly, averaging 5.520 % from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2017, with 1 observations. South Africa ZA: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank: Health Statistics. Diabetes prevalence refers to the percentage of people ages 20-79 who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.; ; International Diabetes Federation, Diabetes Atlas.; Weighted average;

BackgroundThere is very limited data on the time trend of diabetes incidence in Asia. Using population-level data, we report the secular trend of the incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Hong Kong between 2002 and 2015.Methods and findingsThe Hong Kong Diabetes Surveillance Database hosts clinical information on people with diabetes receiving care under the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, a statutory body that governs all public hospitals and clinics. Sex-specific incidence rates were standardised to the age structure of the World Health Organization population. Joinpoint regression analysis was used to describe incidence trends.A total of 562,022 cases of incident diabetes (type 1 diabetes [n = 2,426]: mean age at diagnosis is 32.5 years, 48.4% men; type 2 diabetes [n = 559,596]: mean age at diagnosis is 61.8 years, 51.9% men) were included. Among people aged

Food components are expressed in kilocalories/person/day. Urbanization refers to the percentage of the population living in urban areas. Aging is the percentage of the population 65 years of age and older. Obesity is the percentage of the population with BMI at least 30x kg/m2.Robust standard errors in parentheses*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Food components are expressed in kilocalories/person/day, such that each row displays the impact on diabetes prevalence of a 1 kilocalorie/person/day increase in the availability of the given food category (e.g., a 1 kilocalorie/person/day rise in sugar relates to a 0.0072% rise in diabetes prevalence). Urbanization refers to the percentage of the population living in urban areas. Aging is the percentage of the population 65 years of age and older. Obesity is the percentage of the population with BMI at least 30 kg/m2.Robust standard errors in parentheses.*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Cardiovascular Disease Prevalence in Travis County (2014-2018)

Assessing Risk Factors in an Urban Community

By City of Austin [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides invaluable insight into the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Travis County, Texas between 2014 and 2018. By utilizing data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this dataset offers a comprehensive look at the health of the adult population in Travis County. Are your heart health concerns growing or declining? This dataset has the answer. Through its detailed analysis, you can quickly identify any changes in cardiovascular disease over time as well as understand how disability and other factors such as age may be connected to heart-related diagnosis rates. Investigate how diabetes, lifestyle habits and other factors are affecting residents of Travis County with this insightful strategic measure!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides valuable insight into the prevalence of cardiovascular disease among adults in Travis County from 2014 to 2018. The data includes a Date_Time variable, which is the date and time of the survey, as well as a Year variable and Percent variable detailing prevalence within that year. This data can be used for further research into cardiovascular health outcomes in Travis County over time.

The first step in using this dataset is understanding its contents. This data contains information on each year’s percent of residents with cardiovascular disease and was collected during annual surveys by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). With this information, users can compare yearly changes in cardiovascular health across different cohorts. They can also use it to identify particular areas with higher or lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease throughout Travis County.

Now that you understand what’s included and what it describes, you can start exploring deeper insights within your analysis. Try examining demographic factors such as age group or sex to uncover potential trends underlying the increase or decrease in overall percentage over time . Additionally, look for other data sources relevant to your research topic and explore how prevalence differs across different factors within Travis County like specific counties or cities within it or types of geographies like rural versus urban settings . By overlaying additional datasets such as these , you will learn more about any correlations between them and this BRFSS-surveyed measure overtime .

Finally remember that any findings related to this dataset should always be interpreted carefully given their scale relative to our broader population . Yet by digging deep into the changes taking place , we are able to answer important questions about howCV risk factors might vary from county-to-county across Texas while also providing insight on where public health funding should be directed towards next !

Research Ideas

• Evaluating the correlation between cardiovascular disease prevalence and socio-economic factors such as income, education, and occupation in Travis County over time.
• Building an interactive data visualization tool to help healthcare practitioners easily understand the current trends in cardiovascular disease prevalence for adults in Travis County.
• Developing a predictive model to forecast the future prevalence of cardiovascular disease for adults in Travis County over time given relevant socio-economic factors

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

See the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: strategic-measure-percentage-of-residents-with-cardiovascular-disease-1.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Date_Time | Date and time of the survey. (DateTime) | | Year | Year of the survey. (Integer) | | Percent | Percentage of adults in Travis County with cardiovascular disease. (Float) |

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. If you use this dataset in your research, please credit City of Austin.

Death rate of a population adjusted to a standard age distribution. As most causes of death vary significantly with people's age and sex, the use of standardised death rates improves comparability over time and between countries, as they aim at measuring death rates independently of different age structures of populations. The standardised death rates used here are calculated on the basis of a standard European population (defined by the World Health Organization). Detailed data for 65 causes of death are available in the database (under the heading 'Data').

This dataset presents information on age-sex specific incidence rates of diabetes by First Nations status for Alberta, expressed as per 100,000 population.

Adult respondents ages 18+ who were ever diagnosed with diabetes by a doctor. Years covered are from 2013-2014 by zip code. Data taken from the California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition (AskCHIS NE) (http://askchisne.ucla.edu/), downloaded February 2018. AskCHIS Neighborhood Edition is an online data dissemination and visualization platform that provides health estimates at sub-county geographic regions. Estimates are powered by data from The California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). CHIS is conducted by The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, an affiliate of UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.Health estimates available in AskCHIS NE (Neighborhood Edition) are model-based small area estimates (SAEs).SAEs are not direct estimates (estimates produced directly from survey data, such as those provided through AskCHIS).CHIS data and analytic results are used extensively in California in policy development, service planning and research, and is recognized and valued nationally as a model population-based health survey.Before using estimates from AskCHIS NE, it is recommended that you read more about the methodology and data limitations at: http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/Lists/AskCHIS%20NE%20Page%20Content/AllItems.aspx. You can go to http://askchisne.ucla.edu/ to create your own account.Produced by The California Health Interview Survey and The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and compiled by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. "Field Name = Field Definition"Zipcode" = postal zip code in the City of Los Angeles “Percent” = estimated percentage of adult respondents ages 18+ who were ever diagnosed with diabetes by a doctor"LowerCL" = the lower 95% confidence limit represents the lower margin of error that occurs with statistical sampling"UpperCL" = the upper 95% confidence limit represents the upper margin of error that occurs in statistical sampling "Population" = estimated population 18 and older (denominator) residing in the zip code Notes: 1) Zip codes are based on the Los Angeles Housing Department Zip Codes Within the City of Los Angeles map (https://media.metro.net/about_us/pla/images/lazipcodes.pdf).2) Zip codes that did not have data available (i.e., null values) are not included in the dataset; there are additional zip codes that fall within the City of Los Angeles.3) Zip code boundaries do not align with political boundaries. These data are best viewed with a City of Los Angeles political boundary file (i.e., City of Los Angeles jurisdiction boundary, City Council boundary, etc.) FAQS: 1. Which cycle of CHIS does AskCHIS Neighborhood Edition provide estimates for?All health estimates in this version of AskCHIS Neighborhood Edition are based on data from the 2013-2014 California Health Interview Survey. 2. Why do your population estimates differ from other sources like ACS? The population estimates in AskCHIS NE represent the CHIS 2013-2014 population sample, which excludes Californians living in group quarters (such as prisons, nursing homes, and dormitories). 3. Why isn't there data available for all ZIP codes in Los Angeles?While AskCHIS NE has data on all ZCTAs (Zip Code Tabulation Areas), two factors may influence our ability to display the estimates:A small population (under 15,000): currently, the application only shows estimates for geographic entities with populations above 15,000. If your ZCTA has a population below this threshold, the easiest way to obtain data is to combine it with a neighboring ZCTA and obtain a pooled estimate.A high coefficient of variation: high coefficients of variation denote statistical instability.

ObjectiveDiabetes mellitus is an emerging epidemic in the Arab world. Although high diabetes prevalence is documented in Israeli Arabs, information from cohort studies is scant.MethodsThis is a population study, based on information derived between 2007–2011, from the electronic database of the largest health fund in Israel, among Arabs and Jews. Prevalence, 4-year-incidence and diabetes hazard ratios [HRs], adjusted for sex and the metabolic-syndrome [MetS]-components, were determined in 3 age groups (

Nigeria NG: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data was reported at 2.420 % in 2017. Nigeria NG: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data is updated yearly, averaging 2.420 % from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2017, with 1 observations. Nigeria NG: Diabetes Prevalence: % of Population Aged 20-79 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Nigeria – Table NG.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Diabetes prevalence refers to the percentage of people ages 20-79 who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.; ; International Diabetes Federation, Diabetes Atlas.; Weighted average;

These data represent the predicted (modeled) prevalence of Diabetes among adults (Age 18+) for each census tract in Colorado. Diabetes is defined as ever being diagnosed with Diabetes by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional, and this definition does not include gestational, borderline, or pre-diabetes.The estimate for each census tract represents an average that was derived from multiple years of Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data (2014-2017).CDPHE used a model-based approach to measure the relationship between age, race, gender, poverty, education, location and health conditions or risk behavior indicators and applied this relationship to predict the number of persons' who have the health conditions or risk behavior for each census tract in Colorado. We then applied these probabilities, based on demographic stratification, to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey population estimates and determined the percentage of adults with the health conditions or risk behavior for each census tract in Colorado.The estimates are based on statistical models and are not direct survey estimates. Using the best available data, CDPHE was able to model census tract estimates based on demographic data and background knowledge about the distribution of specific health conditions and risk behaviors.The estimates are displayed in both the map and data table using point estimate values for each census tract and displayed using a Quintile range. The high and low value for each color on the map is calculated based on dividing the total number of census tracts in Colorado (1249) into five groups based on the total range of estimates for all Colorado census tracts. Each Quintile range represents roughly 20% of the census tracts in Colorado. No estimates are provided for census tracts with a known population of less than 50. These census tracts are displayed in the map as "No Est, Pop < 50."No estimates are provided for 7 census tracts with a known population of less than 50 or for the 2 census tracts that exclusively contain a federal correctional institution as 100% of their population. These 9 census tracts are displayed in the map as "No Estimate."

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of obesity, inactivity and inactivity/obesity-related illnesses. Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.The analysis incorporates data relating to the following:Obesity/inactivity-related illnesses (asthma, cancer, chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, depression, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke and transient ischaemic attack)Excess weight in children and obesity in adults (combined)Inactivity in children and adults (combined)The analysis was designed with the intention that this dataset could be used to identify locations where investment could encourage greater levels of activity. In particular, it is hoped the dataset will be used to identify locations where the creation or improvement of accessible green/blue spaces and public engagement programmes could encourage greater levels of outdoor activity within the target population, and reduce the health issues associated with obesity and inactivity.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY1. Obesity/inactivity-related illnessesThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to:- Asthma (in persons of all ages)- Cancer (in persons of all ages)- Chronic kidney disease (in adults aged 18+)- Coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages)- Depression (in adults aged 18+)- Diabetes mellitus (in persons aged 17+)- Hypertension (in persons of all ages)- Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (in persons of all ages)This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.For each of the above illnesses, the percentage of each MSOA’s population with that illness was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of patients registered with each GP that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with each illness was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with each illness, within the relevant age range.For each illness, each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have that illness, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from an illness, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that illness within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.The scores for each of the 8 illnesses were added together then converted to a relative score between 1 – 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best), to give an overall score for each MSOA: a score close to 1 would indicate that an area has high predicted levels of all obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and these are areas where the local population could benefit the most from interventions to address those illnesses. A score close to 0 would indicate very low predicted levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses and therefore interventions might not be required.2. Excess weight in children and obesity in adults (combined)For each MSOA, the number and percentage of children in Reception and Year 6 with excess weight was combined with population data (up to age 17) to estimate the total number of children with excess weight.The first part of the analysis detailed in section 1 was used to estimate the number of adults with obesity in each MSOA, based on GP-level statistics.The percentage of each MSOA’s adult population (aged 18+) with obesity was estimated, using GP-level data (see section 1 above). This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of adult patients registered with each GP that are obeseThe estimated percentage of each MSOA’s adult population with obesity was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of adults in each MSOA with obesity.The estimated number of children with excess weight and adults with obesity were combined with population data, to give the total number and percentage of the population with excess weight.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have excess weight/obesityB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have excess weight/obesityAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have excess weight/obesity, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from excess weight/obesity, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that excess weight/obesity within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.3. Inactivity in children and adultsFor each administrative district, the number of children and adults who are inactive was combined with population data to estimate the total number and percentage of the population that are inactive.Each district was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that district who are estimated to be inactiveB) the NUMBER of people within that district who are estimated to be inactiveAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the district predicted to be inactive, compared to other districts. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to be inactive, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that inactivity within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.Summary datasetAn average of the scores calculated in sections 1-3 was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer the score to 1, the greater the number and percentage of people suffering from obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses. I.e. these are areas where there are a large number of people (both children and adults) who are obese, inactive and suffer from obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and where those people make up a large percentage of the local population. These are the locations where interventions could have the greatest health and wellbeing benefits for the local population.LIMITATIONS1. For data recorded at the GP practice level, data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England). Areas with data missing’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children, we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of