1
Welcome to Fireside Chat # 250December 9, 2011 1:00 – 2:00 PM Eastern Time
Wellesley Urban Health Model
Advisor on Tap: Aziza Mahamoud, Research Associate, Wellesley Institute
Michael Shapcott, Director of Housing and Innovation, Wellesley Institute
www.chnet-works.caCHNET-Works! Hosts weekly Fireside Chats
For population health and stakeholder sectors
A project of Population Health Improvement Research Network
University of Ottawa
2
Advisor on tapName: Michael ShapcottTitle: Director, Housing & InnovationOrganization: Wellesley InstituteCoordinates: [email protected] bio: Michael manages the Wellesley Institute’s
knowledge mobilization and communications practice, and leads the WI’s housing and homelessness work. He co-leads the Wellesley Institute’s social innovation practice
Related website: www.wellesleyinstitute.com
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
3
Advisor on tapName: Aziza MahamoudTitle: Research Associate, Systems Science & Population
HealthOrganization: Wellesley InstituteCoordinates: [email protected] bio: Aziza leads the Wellesley Institute’s systems science
and population health research work. She holds a Masters of Public Health degree and has research experience in communicable disease control & prevention and system dynamics modeling of population health issues
Related website: www.wellesleyinstitute.com09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
What part of Canada are you from?
√ on your province/territory
409/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
What Sector are you from? Put a √ on your answer
/
Public Health Education/ResearchFaculty/Staff/Student
Provincial /Territorial Government/Ministry
Not-for-profit Health Practitioner Other
509/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
609/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
7
Overview
• Background• Introduction to systems dynamics• Methods• Findings • Simulation scenarios• Policy implications and roll out
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
8
Wellesley Institute
• A Toronto-based non-profit and non-partisan research and policy institute
• Focuses on population health advancement through research on the social determinants of health
• Collaborates with diverse communities to develop practical and achievable policy alternatives
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
9
One: We live in a complex, dynamic world where everything is connected to everything else
We need better tools to help us understand the connections
10
Two: There is an increasing amount and array of qualitative and quantitative data coming at us
We need better tools to help us understand and use data
11
Three: ‘Wicked’ policy problems cannot be ‘solved’ with a program here or an investment there… We can’t just throw up our hands and say it all is too complex. We need models of policy thinking, strategic investment, and service interventions that address complex problems...
- Bob Gardner, Wellesley Institute
We need better tools to understand interventions in
complex systems
12
Systems Approach at Wellesley Institute
WI has been working with stakeholders to explore the use of systems thinking and modeling to• inform our understanding of the complexities of
the social determinants of health and to• identify, assess and develop effective policy
alternatives to advance health equity• consider how new approaches like this can be
informed by and connected to community perspectives and policy needs
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
13
Systems Dynamics: What is it?
• Field developed by Jay. W. Forrester at MIT in the 1950s
• “The use of informal maps and formal models with computer simulation to uncover and understand endogenous sources of system behavior” (Richardson, 2011, p. 241)
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
14
System Dynamics Foundations
• Complexity science • Focus on the whole rather than individual parts• Interdependency• Emphasis on feedback and non-linear thinking approach
to solving problems• Emergent patterns• Provides tools and techniques that can help us and
system actors to study and learn about:• Causes of policy failures and dynamic complexities • Counterintuitive behaviour • Leverage points & effective ways of changing system structure
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
15
Problem Definition
Identifying Problem Causes
Focus on Policy Levers
Model formulation,
testing & evaluation
Implementation & Knowledge
Translation
Applying the System Dynamics Perspective
Mental Model
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
16
Wellesley Urban Health Model
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
• a computer-based systems dynamics simulation model
• helps us learn and understand the complex, and dynamic interconnections between a select number of health & social factors
• allows us to test what impact our decisions (interventions) will likely have on population health outcomes under various assumptions • offers insight into how these effects could play out, and
over what timeframes
17
Model Framework
Population health outcomes
Death rate Disability Chronic illness
Social determinants of health interventions
Social cohesion Health care access
Affordable housing Income/jobs Behavioural
Changing health & social conditions
Adverse Housing
Low Income
Social cohesion
unhealthybehaviour
Poor health care access Disability Chronic
illness death
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
18
Model Scope
Population: City of TorontoDistinguishes people by:
• Ethnicity (Black, White, E Asian, SW Asian, Other)• Immigrant status (Recent, Established, Native-born)• Gender
Captures:• 5 areas of intervention: Healthcare access, Healthy behavior,
Income, Housing (lower & non-lower income), Social cohesion• Outcomes: Changes in overall deaths and health conditions,
and disparity ratios
Timeframe: 2006 – 2046Age: 25-6409/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
19
Outcome measures & definitionsUnhealthy behaviour & obese: the prevalence of people
who are smokers or obese (POWER 2009). Chronic illness: having two or more of 12 chronic conditions
as specified by the Association of Public Health Epidemiologists in Ontario (POWER 2009)
Access to health care: the ease of getting an appointment for primary care
Disability: limitation in activities of daily livingMortality: age-standardized death rate Adverse housing: overcrowding (insufficient bedrooms) Social cohesion: feeling of “strong sense of community "
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
20
Data Sources and Parameter EstimationAll data or estimates broken out by 30 subgroups:
5 ethnicities x 3 immigrant statuses x 2 genders
Census 2001 and 2006, Ages 25-64• Population sizes• Disabled % (“often or sometimes”)• Low income• Adverse housing for lower income and higher income
Deaths per 1000 ages 25-64, City of Toronto combined 2000-05(ethnic differences estimated, not available)
CCHS combined 2001-08 (4 cycles), Ages 25-64 • Chronically illness• Healthcare access• Unhealthy behaviour• Social cohesion
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
Population size byethnicity, immigrantstatus, and gender
Disabled %
Undereducated %
Chronically ill %
Poor access tohealth care %
Unhealthy behavior& obese %
Low income %
Health careinterventions
Behavioralinterventions
Educationinterventions
Jobs/incomeinterventions
General lowincome trend General adverse
housing trends
Population-wideaverages & disparity
ratios
Housinginterventions
Adverse housing %(by low/higher income)
Social cohesioninterventions
Social cohesionDeath rate
Initial differences in socialdeterminants and health by ethnicity,
immigrant status, and gender
Initial stakeholder meeting in 2010
Developed a reference group comprised of domain experts, data specialist, researchers, and internal team
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com 21
Held several meetings with the reference group & modeler to conceptualize, design, and evaluate model
Initial Dynamic Hypothesis
Overview of the modeling process
22
Hypothesis Testing• Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to
test causal connections and to produce effect estimates to parameterize the simulation model
• Conducting analysis at the subgroup level (not individual)
• treat each subgroup as a single observation
• Controlling for demographic variables
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
23
Current Model Structure
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
Social Cohesion %
Adverse housing %
Low income %
Poor access toprimary care %
Death rate
Unhealthybehaviour %
Chronically ill %
Disabled %
Employment/incomeinterventions
Social cohesioninterventions
HousinginterventionsBehavioural
interventions
Health careinterventions
jThe figure maps causal pathways in the model. The variables in red are the intervention options. The orange arrows indicate stabilizing effects, and blue arrows indicate reinforcing effects.
24
Feedback loops in the model
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
- Both pink and blue arrows have reinforcing (+) effects- Red arrows have stabilizing (-) effects- Large + signs depict positive feedback loop
% Low-income
Prevalence ofdisability
Prevalence ofchronic illness
Prevalence ofunhealthy behaviour
& obesity
Poor health careaccess %
Adversehousing
Social cohesioninterventions
+
Health care accessinterventions
Unhealthybehaviour
interventions
Housinginterventions
Social cohesion
-
-Employment/incomeinterventions
-
-
-
-
25
Model Validation- We are conducting confirmatory factor analysis
(structural equation modeling) to test how well our current causal pathways in the model can be reproduced
- Regenerate parameter estimates through this method
- Preliminary findings suggest:- model reproduces well, with the exception of a few
causal linkages- most of the parameter estimates are similar to
current estimates and they are stable
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
26
LimitationsModel Structure
• Interventions are exogenous• Interventions are aggregate
• They apply equally to all population subgroups
• No aging• Assuming independence of risk factors
Data challenges• Lack of historical data to do trend analysis• Measurement issues associated with certain variables• Small sample size• Lack of projections for poverty and housing
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
27
Relationship between model structure and behaviour
Model structure
Simulation outcome: Model behaviour
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
28
How interventions work?
• There are 5 intervention options to choose from• Interventions are ramped up over the period
2011-15 and stay in force through 2046• Range from 0 to 100%• All intervention levers are applied equally to all
population segments• For example:
• implementing 30% of the behavioural intervention reduces gaps in unhealthy behaviour by 30%
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
29
Impact of different levels of individual interventions on chronic illnesswe find that it takes 75% improvement in social cohesion (grey line) to yield the same result as 25% improvement in income (black line)
Higher levels of improvements in housing (green) & unhealthy behaviour (red) have decent effect on reducing chronic illness
Different interventions play out different times – effects of cohesion & income are realized earlier, and housing before health behaviour
Chronically ill popn age 25-64
480,000
450,000
420,000
390,000
360,000
2006 2016 2026 2036 2046Year
BaselineBehaviour80Housing70
Cohesion75Income 25
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
30
The impact of income on chronic illness prevalence by immigrant status
•Improvement in income (30%) appears to have the greatest impact in reducing chronic illness prevalence for the native-born population segment (blue line) (15%)•between recent (green line) and established immigrants (red line), the latter segment seems to benefit the most over the long term (13% decrease)
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
Prevalence of chronic illness
31
Deaths per yr in age 25-64
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2006 2016 2026 2036 2046Year
Income25x Inc25Cohes50x Inc25Cohes50Access50x Inc25Allother50x
Disabled popn age 25-64
240,000
210,000
180,000
150,000
120,000
2006 2016 2026 2036 2046Year
Income25x Inc25Cohes50x Inc25Cohes50Access50x Inc25Allother50x
Chronically ill popn age 25-64
480,000
450,000
420,000
390,000
360,000
2006 2016 2026 2036 2046Year
Income25x Inc25Cohes50x Inc25Cohes50Access50x Inc25Allother50x
Outcomes from a Layered Sequence of Tests
+ Poor cohesion down 50%
Poverty down 25%
DISABLED POP SICK POPDEATHS/YR
+ Poor access down 50% (green)+ Adverse behavior & housing down 50% (grey)
Poverty down 25%
Poverty down 25%
+ Poor cohesion down 50%
+ Poor cohesion down 50% (red)
+ Poor access down 50% (green)+ Adverse behavior & housing down 50% (grey)
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
32
Overall Findings
• Death rate reduction: Strongest influence is from Healthcare Access
• Disability reduction: Strongest influences are from Low Income and Cohesion, followed by Health care Access.
• Chronic illness reduction: Strongest influences are from Low Income and Cohesion, followed (but not closely) by Adverse Housing.
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
33
Bearing in mind…
• We acknowledge that the model does not include some of important population health factors & intervention tactics
• Although preliminary analyses of the data and the model produce a number of counter-intuitive findings, we must remember to:• exercise caution when interpreting the findings• be cognizant of apparent data limitations – e.g. access to
primary care, social cohesion• These findings also illustrate the need for further data
collection and improvement of current measurement techniques to better inform simulation modeling
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
34
Implications & Policy Considerations• Getting at the roots of health disparities means understanding
& acting on fundamental structural inequalities
• The need to always consider the complex & dynamic nature of SDoH interventions• we can’t analyze or plan interventions around particular
determinant in isolation
• The most efficient policy is when the combined impact of interventions is taken into account
• The need to recognize the role of strong and cohesive communities in improving population health and well-being
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
35
Implications & Policy Considerations Cont’d
If income is fundamental and underlies other trends and interventions:
• This doesn’t mean that the impact of other determinants of health are insignificant
• These other determinants can have a major role in mediating the effects of overall health disparities and lived experience
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
36
Model Uses1. planning, strategizing and advocating for improving
population health outcomes2. a learning tool to ground policy development & analysis
for dynamically interacting and complex SDoH• Introduce systems thinking
3. allows decision-makers to ask "what if" questions and test different courses of action
4. building a shared understanding and consensus among diverse groups with differing views on issues
5. eliciting stakeholder views and knowledge6. strengthening community dialogue
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
37
Stakeholder and public engagement
Ongoing engagement with wide range of stakeholders including:• decision-makers at various levels of government• various organizations• community partners
Plan to develop a web-based computer interface to make the model more accessible and to engage users interactively
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
38
Desktop interface
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
3909/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
40
AcknowledgementCollaborators
1. Jack Homer, Homer ConsultingModeling
2. Dianne Patychuck, Steps to Equity
Data collection
3. Carey Levinton, Equity MagicSEM
Advisors:4. Nathaniel Osgood, University of
Saskatchewan5. Bobby Milstein, US CDC6. Peter Hovmand, Washington
University
Internal Team
1. Rick Blickstead2. Aziza Mahamoud3. Brenda Roche4. Michael Shapcott5. Bob Gardner
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
THANK YOUPlease visit us at
www.wellesleyinstitute.com
42
Thanks for joining in!www.chnet-works.ca
Contact [email protected] for information about partnering with
CHNET-Works!
A project of Population Health Improvement Research Network
University of Ottawa
09/12/2011 | www.wellesleyinstitute.com
Top Related