SEIFA and disability

The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), offer a comprehensive means to assess and compare the socioeconomic conditions across different regions in Australia. These indexes are instrumental in identifying areas with varying levels of socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages, aiding in targeted policy-making and resource allocation. SEIFA encompasses four distinct indexes, each designed to highlight specific aspects of socioeconomic status. The application of these indexes, particularly in the context of ethnically diverse communities with disabilities, requires careful consideration to ensure equitable and effective outcomes. This discussion explores the nuances of each SEIFA index, delineates best and worst practices in their use, and examines the implications of the National Disability Insurance Agency's (NDIA) preference for the Index of Education and Occupation (IEO) over other measures.

The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) provides a robust framework for evaluating and comparing the socioeconomic conditions across different regions in Australia (Hornby-Turner et al., 2017). SEIFA encompasses four distinct indexes, each designed to highlight specific aspects of socioeconomic status, including the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) and the Index of Education and Occupation (IEO) (Munugoda et al., 2022; Catchpool et al., 2019; Mathew et al., 2019). These indexes help to identify areas with varying levels of socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages, aiding in targeted policy-making and resource allocation (Huang et al., 2017; Villanueva et al., 2019).

The application of SEIFA in ethnically diverse communities with disabilities requires careful consideration to ensure equitable and effective outcomes. It is crucial to acknowledge the nuances of each SEIFA index and delineate best practices in their use to address the specific needs of these communities. The implications of the National Disability Insurance Agency's (NDIA) preference for the Index of Education and Occupation (IEO) over other measures need to be critically examined to ensure that the chosen index aligns with the unique requirements of ethnically diverse communities with disabilities. In conclusion, the SEIFA indexes play a pivotal role in assessing and addressing socioeconomic disparities in Australia. However, their application in ethnically diverse communities with disabilities causes a nuanced understanding of each index and careful consideration of the implications of their use, particularly in the decision-making processes of organizations, such as the NDIA.

?

Differences Between Each SEIFA Index

The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) in Australia is a composite index that measures relative socioeconomic disadvantage at an area level, encompassing factors such as income, education, and occupational status (Hornby-Turner et al., 2017). SEIFA comprises various attributes, including education, occupation, employment, income, families, and housing (Pang et al., 2017). It is standardised and compiled from census data to describe social and economic conditions in geographical areas of Australia (Sawyer et al., 2011). The index is widely used in health-related publications and has become the de facto standard for socioeconomic indexes in Australia (Armfield, 2007). SEIFA scores are grouped into quintiles, with higher scores indicating less socioeconomic disadvantage (Mnatzaganian et al., 2018). The index is used to categorize subjects into groups of socioeconomic disadvantage, enabling the classification of areas into advantaged and disadvantaged categories (Vandeleur et al., 2018). Postcodes with lower SEIFA indexes were found to be associated with higher risk of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infection in pet cats in Australia (Tran et al., 2019). Additionally, specific SEIFA descriptors such as occupation and educational attainment were found to correlate with biomarkers related to food and chemical consumption (Choi et al., 2019). The SEIFA index is constructed using several different variables that indicate advantages (high income, degree qualification) and disadvantages (unemployment status, low income) (Wilson et al., 2017).

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD) focuses on variables that indicate disadvantage, such as low income, low educational attainment, and high unemployment rates (Australian Bureau of Statistics, n.d.-a). It is particularly useful for identifying areas that lack access to basic services and resources.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD) is a valuable tool for identifying areas with limited access to essential services and resources, as it focuses on factors such as low income, low educational attainment, and high unemployment rates (Morley et al., 2018). This index is particularly useful for assessing socio-economic status (SES) and inferring disadvantage based on individual characteristics such as employment status, occupation, educational achievement, or place of residence (Furler et al., 2012). Several studies have utilised the IRSD to assess SES, including research on the impact of mass media campaigns on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (Morley et al., 2018), prevalence of Helicobacter pylori seropositivity in the Australian adult community (Pandeya & Whiteman, 2011), leisure participation in autistic and neurotypical adults (Stacey et al., 2018), and utilization of dental services by older people in Australia (Kamil et al., 2021).

The IRSD has been employed to stratify population-based administrative pharmacy data by accessibility and socio-economic disadvantage quintiles, as well as to calculate socio-economic disadvantage in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and psychological distress (Calver et al., 2007; Lewthwaite et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2019). It has been used to estimate socio-economic disadvantage in relation to the management of musculoskeletal foot and ankle conditions, dental service utilization, and psychological distress following a motor vehicle crash (Walsh et al., 2019; Guest et al., 2017; Tong et al., 2022). The IRSD has been utilised to assess the association between socio-economic disadvantage and psychological distress, hospitalization after release from prison, and the distribution of allied dental practitioners in Australia (Meadows et al., 2020; Love et al., 2017; Jean et al., 2019).

The IRSD has also been employed to identify disadvantaged local communities in relation to early childhood development outcomes, variations in area-level disadvantage of registered fitness trainers' usual training locations, and the incidence of end-stage renal disease in Australian capital cities (Villanueva et al., 2019; Bennie et al., 2016; Cass et al., 2001). It has been used to assess the association between socio-economic disadvantage and resource distribution for mental health care, as well as to detect socio-economic disadvantage in urban centers (Meadows et al., 2020; Goldie et al., 2014). Furthermore, the IRSD has been utilized to estimate the correlation between wildfire hazard exposure and community-level socio-economic disadvantage (Akter & Grafton, 2021).

Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) includes variables for both advantage and disadvantage, offering a broader perspective on the socioeconomic status of an area (Australian Bureau of Statistics, n.d.-b). This index can identify areas that are both well-off and those facing significant challenges.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) is a comprehensive measure encompassing both advantages and disadvantages, providing a holistic view of the socioeconomic status of an area (Mullany et al., 2021). Various studies have utilised this index to understand the impact of socioeconomic status on health and well-being. For instance, it has been used to assess the associations between socioeconomic status and short-term intensive care outcomes (Mullany et al., 2021), hospital admissions for dental conditions (Yap et al., 2018), adiposity in adolescence (Kendzor et al., 2012), late-adulthood health outcomes (Zhou et al., 2022), receipt of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction and angina (Korda et al., 2009), resilience and vulnerability among older adults (Cosco et al., 2017), femoral neck bone strength (Karlamangla et al., 2013), and anthropometric measurements in adults (McCormack et al., 2017).

Furthermore, the IRSAD has been employed to investigate the association between family income trajectory during childhood and adolescent health behaviours such as cigarette smoking and alcohol use (Poonawalla et al., 2014). It has also been used to explore the modulatory role of socioeconomic status in cognitive ability (Naeem et al., 2018), prenatal exposure and children’s cognitive outcomes (Torche, 2018), allostatic load and positive experiences (Podber & Gruenewald, 2023), and the intergenerational transmission of educational advantage (Gr?tz, 2018). Additionally, the IRSAD has been instrumental in studying the differential adoption of health interventions, such as laser prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (Schroeck et al., 2013), and in examining the impact of physical education policy compliance on children’s fitness in different school neighbourhood socioeconomic contexts (Sanchez-Vaznaugh et al., 2017).

In summary, the IRSAD has been a valuable tool in understanding the complex interplay between socioeconomic status and various health and social outcomes, providing insights into the disparities and advantages associated with different socio-economic strata.

Index of Economic Resources (IER) concentrates on financial aspects, including income, housing expenditure, and asset ownership (Australian Bureau of Statistics, n.d.-c). It is valuable for assessing households and communities' economic capabilities or constraints.

The Index of Economic Resources (IER) is a valuable tool for evaluating the economic capabilities of households and communities, focusing on financial aspects such as income, housing expenditure, and asset ownership (Khera et al., 2022). This index is particularly relevant for assessing financial self-efficacy among different demographic groups, such as accounting students in Bali (Herawati et al., 2020), and understanding the impact of training courses on the financial management skills of small-business owners (Kirsten, 2013). Additionally, it plays a crucial role in improving organizational and methodological aspects of financial budgeting, especially in agricultural farms (Urmanova et al., 2021). Furthermore, the IER is instrumental in measuring digital financial inclusion in emerging markets and developing economies, providing insights into financial access and usage aspects (Shen, 2022).

The IER is a comprehensive tool that considers various financial aspects, including income, housing expenditure, asset ownership, and financial self-efficacy. It is instrumental in evaluating financial capabilities and constraints, making it a valuable resource for understanding and addressing economic challenges in different contexts. Overall, the IER is a robust and versatile index that provides valuable insights into the financial aspects of diverse settings, from educational environments to agricultural businesses and emerging economies.

?

References:

Akter, S. and Grafton, R. (2021). Do fires discriminate? socio-economic disadvantage, wildfire hazard exposure and the australian 2019–20 ‘black summer’ fires.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-232966/v1

Armfield, J. (2007). Socioeconomic inequalities in child oral health: a comparison of discrete and composite area‐based measures. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 67(2), 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00026.x

Bennie, J., Thornton, L., Uffelen, J., Banting, L., & Biddle, S. (2016). Variations in area-level disadvantage of Australian registered fitness trainers' usual training locations. BMC Public Health, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3250-3

Calver, J., Preen, D., Bulsara, M., & Sanfilippo, F. (2007). Stimulant prescribing for the treatment of ADHD in western Australia: socioeconomic and remoteness differences. The Medical Journal of Australia, 186(3), 124-127. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb00834.x

Cass, A., Cunningham, J., Wang, Z., & Hoy, W. (2001). Social disadvantage and variation in the incidence of end‐stage renal disease in Australian capital cities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 322-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00587.x

Catchpool, M., Gold, L., Grobler, A., Clifford, S., & Wake, M. (2019). Health-related quality of life: population epidemiology and concordance in Australian children aged 11–12 years and their parents. BMJ Open, 9(Suppl 3), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022398

Choi, P., Tscharke, B., Samanipour, S., Hall, W., Gartner, C., Mueller, J., … & O’Brien, J. (2019). Social, demographic, and economic correlates of food and chemical consumption measured by wastewater-based epidemiology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(43), 21864-21873. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910242116

Cosco, T., Cooper, R., & Kuh, D. (2017). Socioeconomic inequalities in resilience and vulnerability among older adults: a population-based birth cohort analysis. International Psychogeriatrics, 30(5), 695-703. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610217002198

Furler, J., Magin, P., Pirotta, M., & Driel, M. (2012). Participant demographics reported in "table 1" of randomised controlled trials: a case of "inverse evidence"?. International Journal for Equity in Health, 11(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-11-14

Goldie, X., Kakuk, I., & Wood, G. (2014). Two Tales of a City: detecting socio-economic disadvantage in an ‘advantaged’ Australian urban centre. Australian Geographer, 45(4), 521-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.953737

Gr?tz, M. (2018). Competition in the family: inequality between siblings and the intergenerational transmission of educational advantage. Sociological Science, 5, 246-269. https://doi.org/10.15195/v5.a11

Guest, R., Tran, Y., Gopinath, B., Cameron, I., & Craig, A. (2017). Psychological distress following a motor vehicle crash: evidence from a statewide retrospective study examining settlement times and costs of compensation claims. BMJ Open, 7(9), e017515. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017515

Herawati, N., Candiasa, I., Yadnyana, I., & Suharsono, N. (2020). Factors that influence financial self-efficacy among accounting students in bali. Journal of International Education in Business, 13(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/jieb-02-2019-0010

Hornby-Turner, Y., Peel, N., & Hubbard, R. (2017). Health assets in older age: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 7(5), e013226. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013226

Hornby-Turner, Y., Peel, N., & Hubbard, R. (2017). Health assets in older age: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 7(5), e013226. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013226

Huang, X., Lambert, S., Lau, C., Magalhaes, R., Marquess, J., Rajmokan, M., … & Hu, W. (2017). Assessing the social and environmental determinants of pertussis epidemics in queensland, australia: a bayesian spatio-temporal analysis. Epidemiology and Infection, 145(6), 1221-1230. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268816003289

Jean, G., Kruger, E., & Tennant, M. (2019). The distribution of allied dental practitioners in Australia: socio‐economics and rurality as a driver of better health service accessibility. Australian Dental Journal, 64(2), 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12679

Kamil, W., Kruger, E., & Tennant, M. (2021). Utilisation of dental services of older people in Australia: an economic explanatory model based on cost and geographic location. Geriatrics, 6(4), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6040102

Karlamangla, A., Mori, T., Merkin, S., Seeman, T., Greendale, G., Binkley, N., … & Crandall, C. (2013). Childhood socioeconomic status and adult femoral neck bone strength: findings from the midlife in the United States study. Bone, 56(2), 320-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2013.06.021

Kendzor, D., Caughy, M., & Owen, M. (2012). Family income trajectory during childhood is associated with adiposity in adolescence: a latent class growth analysis. BMC Public Health, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-611

Khera, P., Ng, S., Ogawa, S., & Sahay, R. (2022). Measuring digital financial inclusion in emerging market and developing economies: a new index. Asian Economic Policy Review, 17(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12377

Kirsten, C. (2013). The impact of training courses on financial management skills of South African small-business owners. International Business & Economics Research Journal (Iber), 12(7), 825. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v12i7.7971

Korda, R., Clements, M., & Kelman, C. (2009). Universal health care no guarantee of equity: comparison of socioeconomic inequalities in the receipt of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction and angina. BMC Public Health, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-460

Lam, J., Tyler, J., Scurrah, K., Reavley, N., & Dite, G. (2019). The association between socioeconomic status and psychological distress: a within and between twin study. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 22(5), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2019.91

Lewthwaite, H., Olds, T., Williams, M., Effing, T., & Dumuid, D. (2019). Use of time in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: longitudinal associations with symptoms and quality of life using a compositional analysis approach. Plos One, 14(3), e0214058. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214058

Love, A., Kinner, S., & Young, J. (2017). Social environment and hospitalisation after release from prison: a prospective cohort study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111406

Mathew, N., Burton, K., Schierbeek, A., ?rn?ec, R., Walter, A., & Eapen, V. (2019). Parenting preschoolers with autism: socioeconomic influences on wellbeing and sense of competence. World Journal of Psychiatry, 9(2), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v9.i2.30

McCormack, G., Friedenreich, C., McLaren, L., Potestio, M., Sandalack, B., & Csizmadi, I. (2017). Interactions between neighbourhood urban form and socioeconomic status and their associations with anthropometric measurements in canadian adults. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2017, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5042614

Meadows, G., Shawyer, F., Dawadi, S., Inder, B., & Enticott, J. (2020). Socio-economic disadvantage and resource distribution for mental health care: a model proposal and example application for Victoria, Australia. Australasian Psychiatry, 29(2), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856220963921

Mnatzaganian, G., Hiller, J., Fletcher, J., Putland, M., Knott, C., Braitberg, G., … & Bish, M. (2018). Socioeconomic gradients in admission to coronary or intensive care units among Australians presenting with non-traumatic chest pain in emergency departments. BMC Emergency Medicine, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-018-0185-2

Morley, B., Niven, P., Dixon, H., Swanson, M., McAleese, A., & Wakefield, M. (2018). Controlled cohort evaluation of the livelighter mass media campaign’s impact on adults’ reported consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. BMJ Open, 8(4), e019574. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019574

Mullany, D., Pilcher, D., & Dobson, A. (2021). Associations between socioeconomic status, patient risk, and short-term intensive care outcomes. Critical Care Medicine, 49(9), e849-e859. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000005051

Munugoda, I., Brennan-Olsen, S., Wills, K., Cai, G., Graves, S., Lorimer, M., … & Jones, G. (2022). Association between socioeconomic status and joint hip and knee replacement: a population‐based cohort study of older adults in Tasmania. Internal Medicine Journal, 52(2), 265-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.15066

Naeem, K., Filippi, R., Periche-Tomas, E., Papageorgiou, A., & Bright, P. (2018). The importance of socioeconomic status as a modulator of the bilingual advantage in cognitive ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01818

Pandeya, N. and Whiteman, D. (2011). Prevalence and determinants of helicobacter pylori seropositivity in the Australian adult community. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 26(8), 1283-1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06726.x

Pang, B., Rundle-Thiele, S., & Kubacki, K. (2017). An empirical examination of the ecological and cognitive active commuting framework. Health Education, 117(6), 581-598. https://doi.org/10.1108/he-12-2016-0066

Podber, N. and Gruenewald, T. (2023). Socioeconomic status, positive experiences, and allostatic load.. Health Psychology, 42(2), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001260

Poonawalla, I., Kendzor, D., Owen, M., & Caughy, M. (2014). Family income trajectory during childhood is associated with adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 39(10), 1383-1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.05.005

References:

Sanchez-Vaznaugh, E., Rosas, L., Fernández-Pe?a, J., Baek, J., Egerter, S., & Sánchez, B. (2017). Physical education policy compliance and latino children’s fitness: does the association vary by school neighborhood socioeconomic advantage?. Plos One, 12(6), e0178980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178980

Sawyer, M., Harchak, T., Wake, M., & Lynch, J. (2011). Four-year prospective study of bmi and mental health problems in young children. Pediatrics, 128(4), 677-684. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3132

Schroeck, F., Hollingsworth, J., Hollenbeck, B., Jacobs, B., Suskind, A., Sarma, A., … & Wei, J. (2013). Differential adoption of laser prostatectomy for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology, 81(6), 1177-1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.051

Shen, Y. (2022). Comment on “measuring digital financial inclusion in emerging market and developing economies: a new index”. Asian Economic Policy Review, 17(2), 231-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12387

Stacey, T., Froude, E., Trollor, J., & Foley, K. (2018). Leisure participation and satisfaction in autistic adults and neurotypical adults. Autism, 23(4), 993-1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318791275

Tong, B., Osborne, C., Horwood, C., Hakendorf, P., Woodman, R., & Li, J. (2022). Prevalence, characteristics and risk factors of frequently readmitted patients to an internal medicine service. Internal Medicine Journal, 52(9), 1561-1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.15395

Torche, F. (2018). Prenatal exposure to an acute stressor and children’s cognitive outcomes.. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/h5prm

Tran, V., Kelman, M., Ward, M., & Westman, M. (2019). Risk of feline immunodeficiency virus (fiv) infection in pet cats in australia is higher in areas of lower socioeconomic status. Animals, 9(9), 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090592

Urmanova, U., Tursunkulova, G., Bozorboeva, Z., & Болтаев, А. (2021). Improvement of organizational and methodological aspects of financial budgeting on agricultural farms. E3s Web of Conferences, 258, 06072. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125806072

Vandeleur, M., Walter, L., Armstrong, D., Robinson, P., Nixon, G., & Horne, R. (2018). Quality of life and mood in children with cystic fibrosis: associations with sleep quality. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 17(6), 811-820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2017.11.021

Villanueva, K., Badland, H., Tanton, R., Katz, I., Brinkman, S., Lee, J., … & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Local housing characteristics associated with early childhood development outcomes in australian disadvantaged communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101719

Villanueva, K., Badland, H., Tanton, R., Katz, I., Brinkman, S., Lee, J., … & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Local housing characteristics associated with early childhood development outcomes in australian disadvantaged communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101719

Walsh, T., Ferris, L., Cullen, N., Bourke, J., Cooney, M., Gooi, C., … & Arnold, J. (2019). Management of musculoskeletal foot and ankle conditions prior to public‐sector orthopaedic referral in south australia. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-019-0331-4

Wilson, A., McNaughton, D., Meyer, S., & Ward, P. (2017). Understanding the links between resilience and type-2 diabetes self-management: a qualitative study in south australia. Archives of Public Health, 75(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-017-0222-8

Yap, M., Kok, M., Nanda, S., Vickery, A., & Whyatt, D. (2018). Hospital admissions and emergency department presentations for dental conditions indicate access to hospital, rather than poor access to dental health care in the community. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 24(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1071/py17044

Zhou, T., Harris, R., & Manley, D. (2022). Childhood socioeconomic status and late-adulthood health outcomes in china: a life-course perspective. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 16(2), 511-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-022-09489-5