Address inaccuracy in health registration data: determinants and impacts

Access to demographic data that are complete, accurate and up-to-date is fundamental to many aspects of public health, government and academic work and for accurate interpretation of other databases. Health registration data are the prime source of demographic information for health and social care systems; for example, as an indicator of need, as a source of denominators to convert number of events into rates, or in the case of the residential address information as the basis for generating the call-recall invitation letters that are used for most screening programs (e.g. breast, colo-rectal and AAA screening). However, list inflation (ghosts, duplicates or emigrants) and a degree of address inaccuracy are recognised caveats with the health registration data and a recent NILS-related study on breast screening suggests that improved address accuracy might be a fast and efficient means of increasing screening uptake rates in cities and amongst deprived populations. In NI these data are collated by the BSO who uniquely in the UK also have access to data relating to prescribing, dental registrations and use of A&E services. These can be used to supplement the standard demographic and address information by (i) indicating patients who are alive and resident in NI and (ii) providing an independent source of probably improved address information. This study will use the NI Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN), rather than the addresses per se which are difficult to work with, to compare the addresses registered in the BSO with those addresses in the enumerated 2011 census. Assuming that the census is a more accurate source of address information for individuals, a comparison of the health registration addresses with those recorded at the census, the aim of the proposed study will be to (i) characterise the amount and distributions of these differences, (ii) to see what proportion of those who do not attend for screening did not actually receive an invitation letter because the addresses were incorrect, (iii) to determine how much of the social gradient (and urban/rural differences) in screening uptake are due to address inaccuracies, (iv) a comparison of timing of address changes at the BSO will provide information on the delays in updating of addresses.

Collective synchrony increases prosociality towards non-performers and out-group members

Previous research has found that behavioural synchrony between people leads to greater prosocial tendencies towards co-performers. In this study we investigated the scope of this prosocial effect: does it extend beyond the performance group to an extended in-group (extended parochial prosociality) or even to other people in general (generalized prosociality)? Participants performed a simple rhythmic movement either in time (synchrony condition) or out of time (asynchrony condition) with each other. Before and during the rhythmic movement, participants were exposed to a prime that made salient an extended in-group identity. After the task, half the participants had the opportunity to help an extended in-group member; the other half had the opportunity to help an out-group member. We found a main effect of our synchrony manipulation across both help targets suggesting that the prosocial effects of synchrony extend to non-performers. Furthermore, there was a significantly higher proportion of participants willing to help an out-group member after moving collectively in synchrony. This study shows that under certain intergroup contexts synchrony can lead to generalized prosociality with performers displaying greater prosociality even towards out-group members.