Upload
phit-bhwp
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Partnership Summit 30 th July 2010 Jim McManus Joint Director of Public Health Section 1: Background and Introduction National Audit Office 2010 • Inequalities in ‘general socioeconomic & environmental conditions’ • unequal access to good education, secure employment, income etc • Inequalities in living & working conditions from childhood to old age • Inequalities in community resources • Inequalities in lifestyle factors like cigarette smoking, diet & physical activity inequalities in
Citation preview
Partnership Summit 30th July 2010
Jim McManusJoint Director of Public Health
Children and Young People: HealthInequalities – Reference Slides
Section 1: Background and Introduction
National Audit Office 2010
Unequal distribution of determinants underlies health inequalities
• Inequalities in ‘general socioeconomic & environmental conditions’
• unequal access to good education, secure employment, income etc
• Inequalities in living & working conditions from childhood to old age
inequalities in
• Inequalities in community resources
• Inequalities in lifestyle factors like cigarette smoking, diet & physical activity
National Audit OfficeReview of Health Inequalities 2010
• Not on course to meet target for spearheads nationally
• Gap between spearheads and national targets
• Persisting health inequalities despite the Quality and Outcomes Framework and despite the introduction of spearheads.
• Quality of primary care crucial• Spearheads suggested to be of limited
effectiveness
Challenges
• Be clear about problems• National Support Teams and implementing
recommendations• Reconfiguration• Be clear about what actually works and what
doesn’t• Be clear whose role it is• Focus on priorities• Primary Care is key to short term• Focused on outcomes
Section 2: Births, Stillbirths and Infant Mortality
Total Births
Stillbirthsincluding major congenital anomalies
Stillbirthsadjusted to exclude major congenital anomalies
Stillbirth Main Groups
Infant Deaths
Section 3: Early and Avoidable Death
Life expectancy and disability free life expectancy at birth, persons by neighbourhood income level, England, 1999-2003
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Neighbourhood Income DeprivationSource: ONS (Population Percentiles)
Age
Life expectancy
DFLE
Pension age increase2026-46Poly. (DFLE)
Years of Life Lost (Under 20 yrs)ONS 2005-2008, Latest source
Male AAACM by IMD Quintile in Birmingham 1995 - 2008
Three year rolling average
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1995
/ 19
97
1996
/ 19
98
1997
/ 19
99
1998
/ 20
00
1999
/ 20
01
2000
/ 20
02
2001
/ 20
03
2002
/ 20
04
2003
/ 20
05
2004
/ 20
06
2005
/ 20
07
2006
/ 20
08
Years
DS
R
Affluent Less Affluent Average Less Deprived Deprived
Data source : ONS de ath registra tionsPHIT ca lcula tion
Life Expectancy by Ward
Life Expectancy Gap Males
Breakdown of the life expectancy gap with England, by cause - males
7%
13%
15%
4%
5%
12%
13%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
00CN Birmingham England Spearhead Group
All circulatory diseases, 30%
All cancers, 22%
Respiratory diseases, 16%
Digestive, 11%
External causes, 7% Infectious and parasitic diseases, 2%
Other, 10%
Deaths under 28 days, 3%
Life Expectancy Gap by AgeGroup Males
Breakdown of the life expectancy gap with England, by age group - males
20%
10%
0%
4%
25%
20%
3%0%2%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
00CN Birmingham England Spearhead Group
<1, 4%
80+, 10%
70-79, 24%
60-69, 26%
50-59, 17%
40-49, 10%
30-39, 5%20-29, 2%
10-19, 1%
01-09, 1%
Life Expectancy Gap Females
Breakdown of the life expectancy gap with England, by cause - females
18%
5%
22%
14%
5%
9%
12%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
00CN Birmingham England Spearhead Group
All circulatory diseases,
All cancers, 22%
Respiratory diseases, 20%
Digestive, 10%
External causes, 3% Infectious and parasitic diseases, 2%
Other, 12%
Deaths under 28 days, 4%
Life Expectancy Gap by AgeGroup Females
Breakdown of the life expectancy gap with England, by age group - females
11%
8%
21%
25%
9%
5%1%0%4%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
00CN Birmingham England Spearhead Group
<1, 5%
80+, 17%
70-79, 29%
60-69, 22%
50-59, 14%
40-49, 7%
30-39, 3%
20-29, 1%
10-19, 1%
01-09, 1%
Section 4: Burden of Health Inequalities
DH Health Profile 2010www.healthprofiles.info
Significantly better than England average
Significantly worse than England average
DH Health Profile 2010www.healthprofiles.info
Significantly better than England average
Significantly worse than England average
A & E Attendances
A and E Social Gradient
Statistically significant, above the Birmingham average
Statistically significant, consistent with the Birmingham average (normal distribution)
Statistically significant, below the Birmingham average
Hospital Admissions for Accidents
Accident Social Gradient
Self Harm
Female Male
Deprivation and Service UseCAMHS Tier 3
Social Gradient for Accessing CAMHS Tier 3 services by CWI Decile 2008BCH
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child Wellbeing Index Decile (Where 1 is Most Deprived)
Add Trendline
Statistically significant, above the Birmingham average
Statistically significant, consistent with the Birmingham average (normal distribution)
Statistically significant, below the Birmingham average
Income Deprivation Affecting Children
Statistically significant, above the Birmingham average
Statistically significant, consistent with the Birmingham average (normal distribution)
Statistically significant, below the Birmingham average
Positive Contribution:Youth Offending by Ward
Obesity
Core City Results Childhood Obesity 2006/07 to 2008/09
Core City Reception Year 6
Dateline 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Birmingham 11.3% 10.6% 10.8% 21.5% 22.1% 21.6%
Bristol 10.3% 9.7% 10.4% 19.5% 15.2% 17.9%
Leeds 8.4% 9.2% 10.3% 19.3% 17.8% 20.9%
Liverpool 12.1% 10.6% 10.4% 20.8% 18.0% 22.6%
Manchester 11.5% 11.5% 12.4% 21.9% 22.8% 22.6%
Newcastle upon Tyne
10.9% 10.9% 12.3% 20.8% 21.3% 21.9%
Nottingham 12.8% 12.5% 10.0% 22.0% 20.1% 22.6%
Sheffield 8.1% 6.9% 9.4% 17.4% 14.8% 18.7%
Children Obese Year 0 by PCT
Source PHIT 2010
Children Obese Year 6 by PCT
Source PHIT 2010
Birmingham by Cadbury Neighbourhood Classifications
• Understanding these as drivers and intervening variables
• Transit or Escalator– move to less deprived areas
• Isolate – move to equally or more deprived areas
Section 5: Preventive Health Measures
Data on dental public health is in the previous section
Immunisation 1st Birthday
1st Birthday Childhood Immunisations 2008 – 2009 by Birmingham PCT
DTaP/IPV/Hib MMR PCV
% % %
ENGLAND 92 91 91
WEST MIDS 94 94 94
NHS BEN 90 89 90
HOB PCT 93 93 93
NHS SOUTH 91 91 91
Immunisation 2nd Birthday
2nd Birthday Childhood Immunisations 2008 – 2009 by Birmingham PCT
DTaP/IPV/Hib MMR MenC Hib/Menc PCV
% % % % %
ENGLAND 94 85 92 85 81
WEST MIDS 96 88 95 90 86
NHS BEN 92 88 91 85 83
HOB PCT 96 94 94 90 89
NHS SOUTH 95 85 93 87 82
Immunisation 5th Birthday
5th Birthday Childhood Immunisations 2008 – 2009 by Birmingham PCT
Diphtheria /Tetanus /
PolioHib
Diphtheria /Tetanus /
Polio
MMRPCV
Primary Primary Booster First DoseFirst & Second
Dose
% % % % %
ENGLAND 93 91 80 89 78
WEST MIDS 96 94 87 91 82
NHS BEN 95 94 82 92 78
HOB PCT 95 94 90 95 89
NHS SOUTH 95 94 79 91 76
Smoking/Tobacco 1
• 25% citywide prevalence of smoking allages– Much higher in more deprived areas i.e., 45% in
Kingstanding, over 30% in Longbridge…
• Nearly 50% smokers are under 35 years old– Inequality: Routine and manual smoking rates are the
highest, tend to have more children under 5 than the better off
• New Tobacco Control Strategy for Birmingham aims to denormalise smoking in the city
Smoking/Tobacco 2
• In 2009, 6% of pupils smoked regularly (at least once a week) • The prevalence of regular smoking among 11 to 15 year olds
has halved since its peak in the mid 1990s – 13% in 1996 –suggesting a sustained decline to levels well below the government’s 1998 target of reducing the prevalence of regular smoking among 11 to 15 year olds to 9% by 2010
• Girls are more likely to smoke regularly than boys (7% and 5% respectively)
• The prevalence of smoking increases with age, from less than 0.5% of 11 year olds to 15% of 15 year olds.
• White pupils are more likely to smoke than pupils of Black or Mixed ethnicity, and smoking is also more likely among pupils inreceipt of free school meals, an indicator of low family income
• Regular smoking is also associated with drinking alcohol, drug use, truancy and exclusion from school
Smoking/Tobacco 3
A recent research project in Birmingham on the Use of Tobacco by Under 18year olds[1] has highlighted the following issues for youth smoking which weneed to act on;• we need to understand more about how many young people smoke, and what
services they think they need and would access • Given the access many young people have to cigarettes through family and
friends, at home and at school, through retailers and from illegal sources, strategies need to be developed at the community level which involve families, social networks and key stakeholders rather than just individual smokers
• addressing community norms including attitudes towards youth smoking and purchasing or providing cigarettes for under 18s
• continued action to increase the enforcement of the age of sale law through retailer education, encouragement of requests for IDs and targeted test purchasing and fines. There is some evidence from this study that this is taken more seriously by retailers for alcohol sales
[1] The Use of Tobacco by Under 18 year olds. Amos A, Robinson, J 2009
Smoking/Tobacco 4 :Suggested Actions
• action to address proxy sales (may require legislation on purchasing on behalf of under-18s), though experience in other countries suggests that this may be difficult to enforce
• continued action to reduce cigarette and tobacco black market activities
• action in schools including smoking prevention programmes and review of policies on smoking in school grounds and premises. This may require extra resources and training
• more local research to (i) increase understanding about youth access and sources (including 16 and 17 year olds) and (ii) assess youth prevention programme and cessation service needs
Section 6: What Can be Done?
• Short Term
• Medium Term
• Long Term
Marmot’s Conceptual Framework
A Matrix
Short Medium Long
Give every child the best start in life
Natal care
Smoking
Imms
Health visiting
Health visiting
Schooling
Emotional health
Play
Integrated education
Educational outcomes
maximise capabilties and have control
Fair employment and good work
An alternative
NHS Local Authority
Other
Healthy standard of living
Access to primary care
Target least healthy for intervention
Decent Homes (social sector)
Physical environment
Decent homes (private sector)
Physical environment
Culture of healthy living
Healthy and sustainable places
Encourage physical activity
Licensing
Parks and Spaces
Core Strategy
Planning
Transport Strategy
Strengthen ill health prevention
Identify, target and screen in primary care
Behavioural pathways and self-management
Change culture
Priorities for Scrutiny
• Having a clear overview of the problems and solutions
• Asking the awkward questions• “Will this really make Birmingham
healthier and reduce inequalities?”• Scrutinising delivery and progress• Understand short, medium and long term• Understand key role of Primary Care• Ensure system is capable, appropriately
funded and is DELIVERING
Matrix for our persistent issues
NHS Local Authority
Other
Infant Mortality
•Maternity specification
•Health Visiting
•Pick up & Pass
•Housing
•Income Maximisation
•Private Landlord
•Childrens Centres
•Community culture change
Child Obesity
•Nutrition planning with parents pre-school
•GP screening and nutrition classes
•Parenting Skills
•School PH Nursing
•School Day Nutrition-Action Balance
•Obesogenic environment
•Physical Activity/Play
•Health Trainers
Mental Health
•CAMHS check for all professionals
•Pick up and pass
•Tier 1 in schools
•Emotional health curriculum
A Matrix..continued
NHS LA Other
Infectious Diseases
Self Harm
Smoking initiation
Child Poverty
Conclusions
• Persistent Social Inequalities
• Persistent Health Inequalities
• Needs Clear “Matrix” Child Public Health Strategy
• Focus on key outcomes