SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of obesity in adults (aged 18+). 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 obesity in adults (aged 18+).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 adult population (aged 18+) that are obese 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 adult population that are obese 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 that are obese, 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 adult population within that MSOA who are estimated to be obeseB) the NUMBER of adults within that MSOA who are estimated to be obeseAn 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 be obese compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people are obese, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with obesity within the adult 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. This dataset also shows rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area and for which there were no statistics regarding adult obesity (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. 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 adult obesity, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of adult obesity.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.

United Kingdom UK: Branches: per 100,000 Adults: Commercial Banks data was reported at 25.141 Number in 2013. This records an increase from the previous number of 22.088 Number for 2012. United Kingdom UK: Branches: per 100,000 Adults: Commercial Banks data is updated yearly, averaging 25.727 Number from Dec 2004 (Median) to 2013, with 10 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 29.026 Number in 2004 and a record low of 22.088 Number in 2012. United Kingdom UK: Branches: per 100,000 Adults: Commercial Banks data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United Kingdom – Table UK.World Bank.WDI: Banking Indicators. Commercial bank branches are retail locations of resident commercial banks and other resident banks that function as commercial banks that provide financial services to customers and are physically separated from the main office but not organized as legally separated subsidiaries.; ; International Monetary Fund, Financial Access Survey.; Median; Country-specific metadata can be found on the IMF’s FAS website at http://fas.imf.org.

Abstract

The fourth edition of the Global Findex offers a lens into how people accessed and used financial services during the COVID-19 pandemic, when mobility restrictions and health policies drove increased demand for digital services of all kinds.

The Global Findex is the world's most comprehensive database on financial inclusion. It is also the only global demand-side data source allowing for global and regional cross-country analysis to provide a rigorous and multidimensional picture of how adults save, borrow, make payments, and manage financial risks. Global Findex 2021 data were collected from national representative surveys of about 128,000 adults in more than 120 economies. The latest edition follows the 2011, 2014, and 2017 editions, and it includes a number of new series measuring financial health and resilience and contains more granular data on digital payment adoption, including merchant and government payments.

The Global Findex is an indispensable resource for financial service practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and development professionals.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individual

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Sampling procedure

In most developing economies, Global Findex data have traditionally been collected through face-to-face interviews. Surveys are conducted face-to-face in economies where telephone coverage represents less than 80 percent of the population or where in-person surveying is the customary methodology. However, because of ongoing COVID-19 related mobility restrictions, face-to-face interviewing was not possible in some of these economies in 2021. Phone-based surveys were therefore conducted in 67 economies that had been surveyed face-to-face in 2017. These 67 economies were selected for inclusion based on population size, phone penetration rate, COVID-19 infection rates, and the feasibility of executing phone-based methods where Gallup would otherwise conduct face-to-face data collection, while complying with all government-issued guidance throughout the interviewing process. Gallup takes both mobile phone and landline ownership into consideration. According to Gallup World Poll 2019 data, when face-to-face surveys were last carried out in these economies, at least 80 percent of adults in almost all of them reported mobile phone ownership. All samples are probability-based and nationally representative of the resident adult population. Phone surveys were not a viable option in 17 economies that had been part of previous Global Findex surveys, however, because of low mobile phone ownership and surveying restrictions. Data for these economies will be collected in 2022 and released in 2023.

In economies where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of primary sampling units. These units are stratified by population size, geography, or both, and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size; otherwise, simple random sampling is used. Random route procedures are used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurs, interviewers make up to three attempts to survey the sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts are made at different times of the day and, where possible, on different days. If an interview cannot be obtained at the initial sampled household, a simple substitution method is used. Respondents are randomly selected within the selected households. Each eligible household member is listed, and the hand-held survey device randomly selects the household member to be interviewed. For paper surveys, the Kish grid method is used to select the respondent. In economies where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected from among all eligible adults of the interviewer's gender.

In traditionally phone-based economies, respondent selection follows the same procedure as in previous years, using random digit dialing or a nationally representative list of phone numbers. In most economies where mobile phone and landline penetration is high, a dual sampling frame is used.

The same respondent selection procedure is applied to the new phone-based economies. Dual frame (landline and mobile phone) random digital dialing is used where landline presence and use are 20 percent or higher based on historical Gallup estimates. Mobile phone random digital dialing is used in economies with limited to no landline presence (less than 20 percent).

For landline respondents in economies where mobile phone or landline penetration is 80 percent or higher, random selection of respondents is achieved by using either the latest birthday or household enumeration method. For mobile phone respondents in these economies or in economies where mobile phone or landline penetration is less than 80 percent, no further selection is performed. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each household, spread over different days and times of day.

Sample size for United Kingdom is 1000.

Mode of data collection

Landline and mobile telephone

Research instrument

Questionnaires are available on the website.

Sampling error estimates

Estimates of standard errors (which account for sampling error) vary by country and indicator. For country-specific margins of error, please refer to the Methodology section and corresponding table in Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar. 2022. The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial Inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19. Washington, DC: World Bank.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of New Britain by race. It includes the population of New Britain across racial categories (excluding ethnicity) as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of New Britain across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

The percent distribution of New Britain population by race (across all racial categories recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau): 82.88% are white, 4.57% are Black or African American, 0.35% are American Indian and Alaska Native, 5.78% are Asian, 0.39% are some other race and 6.02% are multiracial.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (excluding ethnicity) for the New Britain
• Population: The population of the racial category (excluding ethnicity) in the New Britain is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of New Britain total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for New Britain Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

Annual data on the proportion of adults in England who use e-cigarettes, by different characteristics such as age, sex and cigarette smoking status.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the England population by age cohorts (Children: Under 18 years; Working population: 18-64 years; Senior population: 65 years or more). It lists the population in each age cohort group along with its percentage relative to the total population of England. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution across children, working population and senior population for dependency ratio, housing requirements, ageing, migration patterns etc.

Key observations

The largest age group was 18 to 64 years with a poulation of 1,489 (57.98% of the total population). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age cohorts:

• Under 18 years
• 18 to 64 years
• 65 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age cohort for the England population analysis. Total expected values are 3 groups ( Children, Working Population and Senior Population).
• Population: The population for the age cohort in England is shown in the following column.
• Percent of Total Population: The population as a percent of total population of the England is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for England Population by Age. You can refer the same here

Proportion of the population who, when surveyed, reported that they had eaten the recommended 5 portions of fruit and vegetables on a usual day. This is the weighted number of respondents aged 16 and over, with valid responses to the question 'How many portions of fruit and vegetables did you eat yesterday?', eating at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables in the previous day.

All analyses for this indicator have been weighted to be representative of the population of England. These indicators use data from the Sport England Active Lives (AL) survey. These indicators were not intended to be, and should not be, compared directly with other sources of diet data. The AL questions are more simplistic than those used in other sources e.g., National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) or Health Survey for England (HSE). Estimates from the different surveys are not directly comparable as the data collection methodologies are different.

For the HSE, participants are asked numerous questions, including separate questions about fruits, vegetables, and pulses, and portion sizes. For the NDNS, data are collected using food diaries. Foods are then broken down to their component parts and fruit and vegetable portions are calculated. The method used in AL enables responses from a very large sample to be collected which means we can present data for each local authority which cannot be done using other sources.

The main purpose of the data set used for the PHOF indicators is to enable comparisons between areas and to measure progress. Latest update presents data from Active Lives for the period mid-November to mid-November. The current estimates (2020 to 2021 onwards) are not comparable with the previous estimates (between 2015 to 2016 and 2019 to 2020) as the current estimates are consistently around 20 percentage points lower than the previous estimates. Although the estimates of those meeting the ‘5-a-day’ fruit and vegetable consumption recommendations are significantly lower from the single question, the ranking order across local authorities or inequality groups is similar.

Data is Powered by LG Inform Plus and automatically checked for new data on the 3rd of each month.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of depression in adults (aged 18+). 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 depression in adults (aged 18+).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 18+) with depression 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 depression 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 depressionB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have depressionAn 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 depression, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from depression, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with depression 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 depression, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of depression.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.

Percentage of responses in range 0-6 out of 10 (corresponding to 'low wellbeing') for 'Happy Yesterday' in the First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Wellbeing survey.

The Office for National Statistics has included the four subjective well-being questions below on the Annual Population Survey (APS), the largest of their household surveys.

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?
• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

This dataset presents results from the third of these questions, "Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?" Respondents answer these questions on an 11 point scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘completely’. The well-being questions were asked of adults aged 16 and older.

Well-being estimates for each unitary authority or county are derived using data from those respondents who live in that place. Responses are weighted to the estimated population of adults (aged 16 and older) as at end of September 2011.

The data cabinet also makes available the proportion of people in each county and unitary authority that answer with ‘low wellbeing’ values. For the ‘happy yesterday’ question answers in the range 0-6 are taken to be low wellbeing.

This dataset contains the percentage of responses in the range 0-6. It also contains the standard error, the sample size and lower and upper confidence limits at the 95% level.

The ONS survey covers the whole of the UK, but this dataset only includes results for counties and unitary authorities in England, for consistency with other statistics available at this website.

At this stage the estimates are considered ‘experimental statistics’, published at an early stage to involve users in their development and to allow feedback. Feedback can be provided to the ONS via this email address.

The APS is a continuous household survey administered by the Office for National Statistics. It covers the UK, with the chief aim of providing between-census estimates of key social and labour market variables at a local area level. Apart from employment and unemployment, the topics covered in the survey include housing, ethnicity, religion, health and education. When a household is surveyed all adults (aged 16+) are asked the four subjective well-being questions.

The 12 month Subjective Well-being APS dataset is a sub-set of the general APS as the well-being questions are only asked of persons aged 16 and above, who gave a personal interview and proxy answers are not accepted. This reduces the size of the achieved sample to approximately 120,000 adult respondents in England.

The original data is available from the ONS website.

Detailed information on the APS and the Subjective Wellbeing dataset is available here.

As well as collecting data on well-being, the Office for National Statistics has published widely on the topic of wellbeing. Papers and further information can be found here.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the New Britain Hispanic or Latino population. It includes the distribution of the Hispanic or Latino population, of New Britain, by their ancestries, as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the origin of the Hispanic or Latino population of New Britain.

Key observations

Among the Hispanic population in New Britain, regardless of the race, the largest group is of Puerto Rican origin, with a population of 25,104 (76.28% of the total Hispanic population).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Origin for Hispanic or Latino population include:

• Mexican
• Puerto Rican
• Cuban
• Other Hispanic or Latino

Variables / Data Columns

• Origin: This column displays the origin for Hispanic or Latino population for the New Britain
• Population: The population of the specific origin for Hispanic or Latino population in the New Britain is shown in this column.
• % of Total Hispanic Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each Hispanic origin as a proportion of New Britain total Hispanic or Latino population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for New Britain Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

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

United Kingdom UK: Mortality Rate: Adult: Female: per 1000 Female Adults data was reported at 53.693 Ratio in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 53.890 Ratio for 2013. United Kingdom UK: Mortality Rate: Adult: Female: per 1000 Female Adults data is updated yearly, averaging 83.533 Ratio from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2014, with 55 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 111.369 Ratio in 1963 and a record low of 53.693 Ratio in 2014. United Kingdom UK: Mortality Rate: Adult: Female: per 1000 Female Adults data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United Kingdom – Table UK.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Adult mortality rate, female, is the probability of dying between the ages of 15 and 60--that is, the probability of a 15-year-old female dying before reaching age 60, if subject to age-specific mortality rates of the specified year between those ages.; ; (1) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision. (2) University of California, Berkeley, and Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. The Human Mortality Database.; Weighted average;

This is the estimated percentage of adults aged 16 and over in the local area who are inactive. These estimates include the activities of walking, cycling, dance, fitness and sporting activities, but exclude gardening which is outside of Sport England's remit. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) publish physical activity data for adults aged 19+ that includes gardening. Activity is counted in moderate intensity equivalent minutes whereby each 'moderate' minute counts as one minute and each 'vigorous' minute counts as two moderate minutes. Depending on the number of minutes of moderate intensity equivalent (MIE) physical activity, people are described as being:

Inactive - Doing less than 30 minutes a week Fairly Active - Doing 30-149 minutes a week Active - Doing at least 150 minutes a week

Moderate activity is defined as where you raise your heart rate and feel a little out of breath. Vigorous activity is where you are breathing hard and fast and your heart rate has increased significantly (you will not be able to say more than a few words without pausing for breath). When making comparisons between figures, some differences seen may not be significant differences and so a degree of caution should be made before making conclusions. The survey was adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey sample is randomly selected from the Royal Mail’s Postal Address File ensuring a very high coverage of private residential addresses. The target sample size for each English local authority (excluding the City of London and Isles of Scilly) is 500 returns. Data may be suppressed for an area where the threshold of 30 is not reached. Population totals are created using Office for National Statistics (ONS) mid-year population estimates. Data is sourced from the adult Active Lives November to November survey.

Data is Powered by LG Inform Plus and automatically checked for new data on the 3rd of each month.

Percentage of responses in range 4-10 out of 10 (corresponding to 'low wellbeing') for 'Anxious Yesterday' in the First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Wellbeing survey.

The Office for National Statistics has included the four subjective well-being questions below on the Annual Population Survey (APS), the largest of their household surveys.

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?
• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

This dataset presents results from the last of these questions, "Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?" Respondents answer these questions on an 11 point scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘completely’. The well-being questions were asked of adults aged 16 and older.

Well-being estimates for each unitary authority or county are derived using data from those respondents who live in that place. Responses are weighted to the estimated population of adults (aged 16 and older) as at end of September 2011.

The data cabinet also makes available the proportion of people in each county and unitary authority that answer with ‘low wellbeing’ values. For the ‘anxious yesterday’ question answers in the range 4-10 are taken to be low wellbeing. Unlike the other questions, in this case a high value of the response corresponds to low wellbeing.

This dataset contains the percentage of responses in the range 4-10. It also contains the standard error, the sample size and lower and upper confidence limits at the 95% level.

The ONS survey covers the whole of the UK, but this dataset only includes results for counties and unitary authorities in England, for consistency with other statistics available at this website.

At this stage the estimates are considered ‘experimental statistics’, published at an early stage to involve users in their development and to allow feedback. Feedback can be provided to the ONS via this email address.

The APS is a continuous household survey administered by the Office for National Statistics. It covers the UK, with the chief aim of providing between-census estimates of key social and labour market variables at a local area level. Apart from employment and unemployment, the topics covered in the survey include housing, ethnicity, religion, health and education. When a household is surveyed all adults (aged 16+) are asked the four subjective well-being questions.

The 12 month Subjective Well-being APS dataset is a sub-set of the general APS as the well-being questions are only asked of persons aged 16 and above, who gave a personal interview and proxy answers are not accepted. This reduces the size of the achieved sample to approximately 120,000 adult respondents in England.

The original data is available from the ONS website.

Detailed information on the APS and the Subjective Wellbeing dataset is available here.

As well as collecting data on well-being, the Office for National Statistics has published widely on the topic of wellbeing. Papers and further information can be found here.