1 / 15

Injury Indicators Group (ICEIInG)

This document discusses the validation criteria for injury indicators and proposes a work plan for the Injury Indicators Group (ICEIInG). It includes a presentation of previous work, revisiting the validation criteria, and a discussion on the proposed additional criteria. The document also highlights the need for standardization, comparability, and harmonization in defining injury indicators.

lenab
Download Presentation

Injury Indicators Group (ICEIInG)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Injury Indicators Group(ICEIInG) Colin Cryer CHSS, University of Kent, England on behalf of ICEIInG

  2. Agenda • Where we got to at the last meeting • who joined ICEIInG (page 1) • Post meeting thoughts • A proposal of work • Progress since Washington 2001 • Revisit the validation criteria • Discussion

  3. The last meeting…. • Presentation of the work of ICEIInG • the validation criteria • Discussion by ICE • Workshop discussion • Presentation and further discussion • Revised validation criteria

  4. Criteria - slide 1 • (A) The indicator should reflect the occurrence of injury satisfying some case definition of anatomical or physiological damage. • (B) The indicator should reflect a well defined information objective. • (C) It should be possible to use existing data systems, or it should be practical to develop new systems, to provide data for computing the indicator.

  5. Criteria - slide 2 • (D) The probability of a case being ascertained should be independent of social, economic, and demographic factors, as well as health service supply and access factors. • (E) The indicator should be derived from data that are inclusive or representative of the target population that the indicator aims to reflect. • [Note: the intention is that (E) also implies not going beyond the bounds of the target population]

  6. Criteria - slide 3 • (F) The indicator should be based on events that are associated with significantly increased risk of impairment, functional limitation, disability, or death, decreased quality of life, or increased cost. • (G) The indicator should be fully specified to allow calculation to be consistent at any place and at any time.

  7. Other findings from our discussions: • Definition of an indicator needed • Precise definition of an injury needs to be included • We need some statement about standardisation / comparability / harmonisation. • Criteria should be split into >1 dimension, eg. • quality • usefulness • practicality of measurement • Hierarchy of criteria needed • how much fuzziness can we tolerate

  8. A walk in the cherry blossoms … • Post-meeting thoughts • there is much work to be done • much could be done in parallel • I can take some work further • Others are better placed to take other work forward • eg. development of indicators for priority setting • Mechanism needed: • Encourage greater participation - all work to our strengths

  9. Proposal put to ICEIInG • The work of the group be addressed in discrete projects • clear achievable objectives • outputs • papers (peer review journals / conferences) • ICEIInG report • collection of papers, with introduction and linking statements

  10. Method of working • Those with interest / expertise - encouraged to take the initiative. • This PI email a proposal to ICEIInG • Comments from ICEIInG members • if major concerns, not embraced by ICE • Collaborators take the work forward • keep ICEIInG informed periodically • Publication • author list + “…on behalf of the ICEIInG”

  11. A proposal of work • Use the validation criteria to assess national indicators used in setting road safety targets • Canada • New Zealand • United Kingdom • Indicators and how criteria used • handout

  12. Trends in 4 NZ road safety indicators

  13. Discussion of the criteria • (1) Case definition - high variability UK1/2 • (2) Serious outcomes - variability • (3) Ascertainment - OK, but variable UK1 • (4) Inclusive - OK • (5) Source data - N/a • (6) Fully specified - N/a

  14. Proposed additional criteria - for discussion • (H) The indicator should measure accurately the entity that it aims to reflect. [cf (B)] • (I) The indicator should be derived from data that is complete and is accurately coded [cf (D)]. • (J) There should have been no substantial changes / differences in coding frames or in coding practice between place or over time (ie. comparability etc.) • (K) A sound indicator should reflect the occurrence of injuries across personal characteristics, place and time [cf (D), (E)].

  15. For discussion…? • Proposed new criteria, or further comments on the old ones. • Comments / questions on the assessment of road safety indicators • The need for other country demonstrations? • Describe related work that you have done.

More Related