A brief 4-page article appeared recently about aboriginal data and the NHS.
It is accessible at: <http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/aadnc-aandc/R3-196-2013-eng.pdf>
There are many parts of the text that are unclear to us, and we’ve outlined a few of them below. If you have time to read the article, we’d be interested in your comments.
The article sets out to address the impact of the NHS on the quality of data relating to aboriginal people. It compares the response rate of the NHS to the 2006 census, taking into consideration the reserves and Inuit communities.
It is accessible at: <http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/aadnc-aandc/R3-196-2013-eng.pdf>
There are many parts of the text that are unclear to us, and we’ve outlined a few of them below. If you have time to read the article, we’d be interested in your comments.
The article sets out to address the impact of the NHS on the quality of data relating to aboriginal people. It compares the response rate of the NHS to the 2006 census, taking into consideration the reserves and Inuit communities.
On page 3, there is a bar graph, that seems to contradict what appears in the text. For instance, the response rate for Inuit communities is given as 92% in the text but as 76% in the graph.How did the author arrive at 76%?
Figure 1 does not represent response rate for communities but rather community level data published by STC.
A similar contradiction between text and graph seems to appear for the reserves. How did he arrive at 72%?
And what does the 3rd bar below represent? In what way does it meaningfully compare with the two preceding bars?
Figure 1 does not represent response rate for communities but rather community level data published by STC.
A similar contradiction between text and graph seems to appear for the reserves. How did he arrive at 72%?
And what does the 3rd bar below represent? In what way does it meaningfully compare with the two preceding bars?
