Transcript Data sources - More Years, Better Lives

Fast-Track Data Project
Status and Future
9th General Assembly Meeting
Joint Programming Initiative „More Years, Better Lives”
30 September / 01 October 2013
The Hague
Rationale

Help improve the quality and relevance of data, and knowledge about
data sources among scientists and policymakers.

“Mapping” the range of data sources available on ageing, at European ,
national and more local level:
o Describe what data is available
o Examine whether there are major gaps in the data available;
o Influence those collecting data to use more appropriate models;
o Inform researchers and policymakers about potential data sources, their
strengths, limitations, and comparability.
Participation

11 out of the total 14 JPI member states:
o Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
o Plus Croatia with a JPI observer status.

The Scientific Working Group was led by Prof. James W. Vaupel,
Director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and
member of the JPI Scientific Advisory Board.
Link to the Strategic Research Agenda of JPI MYBL

The fast-track data project operates within the broad scope of the
Strategic Research Agenda (SRA).

Informs drafting of the SRA and helps clarify whether there are major
data issues, which need inclusion in the SRA itself.

The main focus is on data relevant to people over 50.
Thematic areas of data
1.
Health and performance
2.
Social systems and welfare
3.
Work and productivity
4.
Education and learning
5.
Housing, urban development and mobility
6.
Public attitudes towards old age
7.
Social, civic and cultural engagement
8.
Uses of technology
9.
Wellbeing
10. Intergenerational relationships
Data selection
 Covered data sources were of high quality, quantitative, recent, if
possible longitudinal or from large datasets, and policy-relevant.
 Where no data was available, or where data was limited or of
doubtful quality, this was also noted. It may indicate the need for
further research, or to changes in routine data collection.
 Data sources included registry data, regular surveys, occasional
surveys, longitudinal surveys, and qualitative evidence.
Governance
Access to
database
Coverage
Linkage
Data quality
Strengths and
weaknesses
Contact information: who can be contacted to ask for data, ask for help...
Timeliness, transparency: e.g. most data collected are out of date to some degree
by the time they are published and made available
Ease: Can data be downloaded directly; if motions need to be filed, persons
responsible contacted etc.
Conditions of access: e.g. data protection issues, fee
Language issues
# variables and # years available
Sample size
Geographical coverage (national, some regions, etc.). For surveys, population
covered (representative or not)
Standardization: harmonized standards, taxonomies, terminologies that could
help codify data, but also the number and range of technical systems present
challenges in terms of interoperability
Possibility of linkage among national databases: Is there a common variable (e.g.
Person ID) that makes data assignable to specific persons, providers etc. across
databases
Entry errors: databases often contain entry errors, multiple common entries, other
redundancies that have led to incorrect /incomplete data
Breaks: changing reporting standards leads to data incompatibility
Consistency of terminology: differences in how data are described when collected
Expert opinion
Results
 Review of a total of 337 national and European-wide data sources
12 country reports
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden, the United Kingdom plus Croatia
 Reports mainly deal with statistical data relevant to policymakers. A smaller section addresses evidence
on policies and provides information about where to find information about national policies.
Main results and policy recommendations
 Access to data
 Sub-Population Coverage
 Topic Coverage
 Methodological Issues
Website
www.jpi-dataproject.eu
Input for the SRA
New and underdeveloped fields
Wellbeing
o Necessary to establish agreement about the definition and measurement.
Relevant data is scattered over a range of sources.
Education and learning
o The most underdeveloped area. Most available data concerns formal
courses in educational institutions, which is only a tiny portion.
Attitudes to age
o Policymakers need to understand how age is viewed by the general
population, and how older people view themselves.
o No consistent measures and data of age discrimination, or of how open
older people are to the kinds of policy changes that are likely to happen.
Input for the SRA
Current data misses key groups
The very old
o Their living conditions, preferences, wellbeing and quality of life.
Those living in residential institutions
o Constitutes a high proportion of older people, missed by many surveys.
Migrants
o Different migrant groups may have very different characteristics and
circumstances, which means very small sample sizes. Also important to
understand internal migration within the EU.
Highest and lowest socio-economic status groups
o Often the target groups of social policymaking.
Input for the SRA
Other problems
Multiple levels of data collection and policy accountability.
o National, regional and local data often not joined up
Frequency of data collection.
o Published data is often out of date, and data collection systems can be slow
to pick up new issues like information technology or social media.
Population sizes for surveys.
o Small countries have difficulty generating appropriate sample sizes
Relative importance of self-reporting vs. objective reporting.
o Objective factors may be inadequate proxies for wellbeing.
Policy recommendations
Access to data
1. Increasing efforts to provide open access to anonymised register data in online
databases or research data centres, particularly for international users;
2. Providing exhaustive and user-friendly documentation on how to use
register data;
3. Promoting international networks of research institutions and data providers
for comparative studies which could jointly benefit from data exchange.
Sub-population coverage
1. Developing and supporting surveys with a more representative sample of the vulnerable
and dependent populations in general, and especially of people 65, 80 and older, the
institutionalised population, people with disabilities, immigrants, and people outside the
socio-economic “mainstream”;
2. Providing better access to aggregated data from official statistics, data from health care
institutions, and other institutions dealing with people from the mentioned sub-groups;
3. Developing new strategies for improving the participation of the above groups in
micro-censuses and censuses.
Topic coverage I

Lack of data that pertain to living arrangements, not only of the elderly, but also of the
aggregate population, which limits the ability to study social and familiar networks.

Little data about the mobility of the elderly across countries within and outside Europe.

Little data regarding the level of participation of those aged 50+ in education

In terms of the use of technologies, data regarding assisted living are also scarce.

As to wellbeing, data are available at the national and the international levels. Yet these
data are often fragmented and stem from surveys that differ in scope and time.

Absence of data about individual attitudes towards and societal images of old age.
Topic coverage II
Recommendations

Increasing available funding opportunities for collecting register and survey
data on less-explored topics

Encouraging public institutions in related fields to allow for access to related
data.
Methodological issues

Improving existing incomplete database and survey infrastructures;

Strengthening and contributing to the sustainability of well-established
structures;

Strengthening the dialogue between scholars and policy-makers

Involving researchers in decision-making procedures in the creation of
datasets and data availability, e.g. by internationally-composed research data
councils.
Challenges and opportunities

Starting a debate on open-access data, particularly if it has been collected,
sampled or developed using public funding;

Improving the collection methods in order to increase the response rates;

Reconsidering the planned EU legislation on the rights of individuals to
disapprove any use of their data.

Improving the budgetary allocation for research and research infrastructures,
especially with the goal of improving access to statistics, as well as developing
surveys and research databases.
Continuation of the JPI Data Project | Broadening the scope
Regional extension

Statistical data relevant to policymakers: Extension from EU-12 coverage to EU-28
Thematic extension

Evidence on policies: Background information on national policies

Evidence on costs: Information on specific impacts and cost-benefit effects
Benefit

Comparative perspective: Best practices?

Most efficient use of resources
Implementation

CSA funding scheme with a prospective budget of approx. 1.0 Mio EUR

Duration of about 12 to 15 months
Thank you.