Bulletin 14 - The importance of national data
![[Previous]](/images/arr_prev.gif)
![[Next]](/images/arr_next.gif)
![[Top]](/images/arr_top.gif)
The importance of national data
National analyses have the potential to bridge gaps in information and
understanding that is not possible on a state by state basis. There are of
course differences between the states that must be understood and it is
important that states undertake their own research. Regional and local level
information is also important but analysis at this level is troubled even more
by the limited number of cases. A combination of national information to
provide an overview of injury patterns, state information for priority setting
and determining the unique issues for the state, and detailed descriptive
information at regional and local level to flesh out issues for program
implementation is needed.
The number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in any one state or
territory is relatively small (Table 1). Even though injury rates are high, the
numbers of cases of injury in any individual area is small and it is difficult
to undertake detailed analysis by, for example, cause, age and sex. This can
only be reliably done for a single state or territory by combining several
years of data, but this masks trends and for some important issues still
provides too few cases for reliable interpretation of the results. Aggregation
at a national level provides more cases and increased interpretability of
results at finer levels of disaggregation. Individual state or territory
information can then be viewed in the context of the national picture.
The administrative boundaries formed by the states and territories often
provide artificial divisions that are not relevant for some analyses. If, for
example, an analysis considers the injury patterns of remote dwelling, rural
town dwelling and urban dwelling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,
it is only realistic to use a national aggregation of these areas such as the
Rural and Remote Area Classification[4]. At an individual state level there
will be too few cases for any in-depth assessment of causal patterns.
Table 1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Census count, 30 June 1991
| State or territory |
Number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons |
Percentage of total state or territory population |
| New South Wales |
75,020 |
1.3 |
| Victoria |
17,890 |
0.4 |
| Queensland |
74,214 |
2.5 |
| South Australia |
17,239 |
1.2 |
| Western Australia |
44,082 |
2.7 |
| Tasmania |
9,461 |
2.0 |
| Northern Territory |
43,273 |
26.1 |
| Australian Capital Territory |
1,616 |
0.6 |
| Australia (includes other territories) |
282,979 |
1.6 |
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1994
4. Department of Human Services and Health. Rural and Remote Areas
Classification. Canberra: AGPS, 1994.
|