ABSTRACT
Background Defining and measuring population health in places is fundamental for local and national planning and conducting within-country and cross-national health comparisons. Yet availability and comparability of place-level health data is unknown.
Methods A scoping review was performed to identify how Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries measure overall health for sub-national geographies within each country. The search was conducted across MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar, supplemented by searching all 38 OECD countries statistical agency and public health institute websites.
Results Sixty publications were selected, plus extracted information from 37 of 38 OECD countries statistical agency and/or public health institute websites. Data sources varied by categorisation into mortality (n=7) or morbidity (n=5) health indicators: the former mostly from national statistical agencies and the latter from population-level surveys. Region was the most common geographic scale: eight indicators for 26 countries, two indicators for 24 countries and one indicator for 20 countries. Similar but slightly fewer indicators were available for urban areas (max countries per most frequent indicator = 24), followed by municipality (range of 1-14 countries per indicator). Other geographies, particularly those at smaller granularity, were infrequently available across health indicators and countries.
Conclusion Health indicator data at sub-national geographies are generally only available for a limited number of indicators at large administrative boundaries. Relative uniformity of health indicator question format allows cross-national comparisons. However, wider availability of health indicators at smaller, and non-administrative, geographies is needed to explore the best way to measure population health in local areas.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work has been funded by the Health Foundation's Social and Economic Value of Health programme.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB approval required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript is publicly available. Links are provided in supplementary materials.
