Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 497

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Which deprivation? A comparison of selected deprivation indexes

·1991·Journal of Public Health

Abstract

A number of indexes of deprivation which have been devised or adopted for use by the health services are examined in relation to their performance in explaining the variation observed in a range of health measures, using data for postcode sectors in Scotland. The Scottish deprivation score and the Townsend index are found to explain most variation, and to adhere most closely to the concept of material disadvantage. The Jarman score is less effective as a result of the inclusion of individual variables which are seen to correlate very weakly, even negatively, with the health indicators. The use of these measures in relation to resource allocation and the new GP contract is discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042650

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 497

Metadata

Venue
Journal of Public Health
Published
1991-11
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
318-26
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3850
OpenAlex
W2757684821
Cited by
497
References
0
FWCI
7.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Which deprivation? A comparison of selected deprivation indexes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042650
The paper
Which deprivation? A comparison of selected deprivation indexes. (1991). Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042650

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.