Does anyone know when 5-year age bands were first introduced, and the rationale for their use.
Indeed why are 1, 2, 3, 4-year age bands not used?
Also is anyone aware of research to show that 5-year age bands may be unhelpful when antigenic original sin is behind population counts for deaths or admissions?
Many thanks.
The main rationale causes for 5 years intervals for research and academic study , is physiological basis where the 5 years a good interval for development shifting in male and female .....Much more is known about how to ensure a good health and
nutritional status than their cognitive and social development its reach in this band of age .
best regards
5 year groupings are used because they are the most common intervals used in routine descriptive statistical publications on disease specific incidence and mortality data (eg national cancer statistics) and used in SMR and SIR calculations. However if rates did change dramatically with age (eg childhood cancers), narrower age groups should be used (eg 1 year).
the routine use of 5 year groups started in the 1930s although vital statistics dates from the mid 19th century.
Indeed why are 1, 2, 3, 4-year age bands not used?
I think the real rationale is the same as that of our using decimal orders in general, and if we humans had not 5- but 2- or 3- fingers hand Dr. Jones would be satisfied. If to be more serious, however, during the first 10 years of life each year is biologically and psychlogically significant, and during 1st year - each month is. I think the 10 year age bands 31-40 and 41-50 years might be informative without further subdivision, while my personal experience teaches me that between 86 and 90 again each year makes a great difference.
Good points and sincere thanks. My interest lies in patterns of single-year-of-age dependant deaths and medical admissions which may arise from original antigenic sin type mechanisms. This acts as a confounding mechanism in traditional age standardization and disrupts attempts to forecast hospital admissions. You may wish to browse through some of my papers on outbreaks of a new type of infectious disease, see www.hcaf.biz/2010/Publications_Full.pdf
Entirely agree, but in some quarters the 5-year band approach has become a standard that no one questions but merely blindly apply. See http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/4037
Dear Rodney, In some quarters (as you put it)
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die...
Dear Preethy,
You can use any age bands you choose, however, remember that the age distribution between different areas deviates from the chosen standard population as the width of the age band increases. Ideally use single year of age, however, this is limited by the accuracy of the population estimates.
Indeed far better to ask yourself the question what am I attempting to do by age standardization. For example, I have discovered that deaths around the world are showing on/off switching and this on/off switching does not neatly match with calendar years. Calculated age standardized mortality can therefore wildly fluctuate. See http://www.hcaf.biz/2010/Publications_Full.pdf for details.
Cheers
Rod
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Epidemiology
- Age Groups