Scottish cancer patient experience survey 2015-2016: exploring differences in patient experiences

Deprivation

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation ( SIMD) identifies small area concentrations of multiple deprivation across Scotland (datazones) and ranks them from most deprived to least deprived. More information on SIMD can be found at www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/SIMD.

Survey respondents were assigned to one of five categories of even size, or quintiles, based on the SIMD ranking of their postcode. Those in the first quintile, SIMD 1, are in the most deprived 20 per cent of datazones and those in the last quintile, SIMD 5, are in the least deprived 20 per cent of datazones.

The analysis carried out for this report showed that, compared to people living in SIMD 1, those living in less deprived areas responded differently in 6 out of the 47 questions.

Of the six questions showing a significant difference, only one was more negative. When asked about the length of time they had to wait before their first appointment with a hospital doctor people living in less deprived areas ( SIMD 3, 4 and 5) were more negative than those in SIMD 1.

The other five questions were more positive for those in at least one of the other quintiles when compared to those in SIMD 1:

• Overall rating of administration of care – SIMD 2;
• Whether they understood the explanation of what was wrong – SIMD 5;
• Whether their GP was given enough information about their condition and the treatment they had received at the hospital – SIMD 4 & 5;
• How often they got answers they could understand when they had important questions to ask their CNS – SIMD 2, 4 & 5;
• Whether groups of doctors and nurses talked in front of them as if they weren’t there – SIMD 2, 4 & 5;

The national report for the survey included some initial analysis looking at statistically significant differences between the SIMD quintiles, as described above, in isolation ^[3] . This initial analysis showed that 14 out of the 50 questions initially analysed were significantly different and, in the majority of cases (10 out of 14), those living in the least deprived areas were more positive.

The difference in results between the two sets of analysis is due to the more complex nature of this secondary analysis which includes additional factors that may affect a person’s experience. Despite these differences, the overall findings from both sets of analysis show similar patterns – in general, people living in less deprived areas were more positive about their care.