Background
This paper summarizes a review of literature carried out as background work to the Fife Public Health Dataset Project. The purpose of the literature review was to:
 Find datasets, databases or indicators similar to those to be used in the
Fife Public Health Dataset Project;
 Find evidence of how similar datasets, databases and indicators have been utilized and how they have been evaluated.
Literature Search
The search was carried out over the internet using the following search engines:
 Medline, Embase and CINAHL via Pub Med
 4 sites via HMIC
 general internet search on Google, MSN and Lycos
The search terms used were:
 Indices of multiple deprivation
 Public Health Datasets
 Public Health Indicators
 Community Planning
 Public Health Information
 Information for Community Planning
 Public Health Intelligence
A full list of the articles selected from the searches are appended to this summary.
Results
The general internet search found a number of sites which are similar tto the Fife Public Health Dataset. The following table lists the sites and their website addresses:

Site
US Community Health Status
Indicators Project
Missouri Department of Health and
Senior Serives Community Health
Profiles
Massachusetts Community Health
Information Profile
Information for Birmingham
Manchester Community Health
Information Profile
Public Health Observatories
Internet address http://www.naccho.org/project2.cfm http://www.health.state.mo.us/GLReq uest/Data.html http://masschip.state.ma.us/ http://www.oi4b.com/ http://www.healthprofile.org.uk/ http://www.pho.org.uk/
These sites have similar aims to the Fife Public Health Dataset and an intention to inform community health planning. The main difference with all of these sites is that the focus is very much on traditional health information. Whilst information on health topics and lifestyles and behaviours is included there is little information around life circumstances.
Few projects have yet to undertake something that will have the breadth of integrated data which it is intended Fife Public Health Dataset Project will have.
Most of the sites concentrate on providing data, which can be viewed as a table, a graph or a map, but analysis of the data and reports from the datasets are not included within the datasets or at least are not attached to the website. Some of the sites have very good mapping facilities, with the ability to overlay different boundaries and data on one map. Most of the UK sites present the information at ward level or a primary care trust level rather than at an lhcc equivalent geography. Meta data for sites is limited to data sources, some of the pros and cons of the data, some of the data weaknesses and how often it is collated.
The articles obtained from the literature search reveal that there is agreement from a variety of sources on the need for tools such as the Fife

Public Health Dataset. However nothing has been presented in the literature following the establishment of a dataset about whether the datasets have been used, who by and for what purpose, whether they have been successful or not, any difficulties around data sharing or any formal evaluation process that has been undertaken.
References
1.
Thacker SB, Stroup DF. Future directions for comprehensive public health surveillance and health information systems in the United States.
Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:383-97.
2.
Assaro PV, Hales JW, Land GH. Making public health data available to community level decision makers-goals, issues and a case report. J Public
Health Manage Pract. In press 2001.
3.
Saunders P, Mathers J, Parry J, Stevens A. Identifying ‘non-medical’ datasets to monitor community health and well-being. J Public Health
Medicine. Vol 23, no 2, Jun 2001.
4.
Gordon A, Womersley J. The use of mapping in public health and planning health services. J Public Health Medicine. Vol 19, no 2, Jun 1997
5.
Department of Health. Public Health information strategy: DH uses of socio-economic information: results from the questionnaire. Department of Health, London.
6.
Jones R, Navin L, Murray K. Use of a community-based touch-screen public-access health information system. Health Bulletin. Vol 51, no 1 ,
Jan 1993.
7.
Yasnoff W, O’Carroll P, Koo D, Kinkins R, Kilbourne E. Public Health
Informatics: improving and transforming public health in the information age. Topic in Health Information Management. Vol 21, no 3, Feb 2001.
8.
Naven L, Jones R, Kohli H, Crawford J. How should be evaluate a public access health information system. In Current perspectives in healthcare computing conference, Harrogate, 13-20 March 1996. Eds. Richards B, de
Glanville H. Weybridge: BJHC 1996.
9.
Galvao L, Kaye K. Using lot quality assessment techniquest to evaluate quality of data in a community-based health information system. Tropical
Doctor. Vol 24, no 4; 149-151 1994
10.
Sorensen J, Ryder S. Indicators of care for mental health patients.
Nursing Times. Vol 90, no 31; 12. 1994
11.
Osuga B. Community based health information systems development in
Entebbe. AMRO. Vol 35, no 1; 7-8,10-11. 1994

12.
Savill A, Goldberg B. Integrated chips. British Journal of Health Care
Computing. Vol 5, no 9;37. 1988
13.
James S, Thomas R. Problems in community healthcare information systems: a case study. Health Informatics Journal. Vol 5, no 3. Sept
1999.
14.
Wickizer, M. Activacting communities for health promotion: a process evaluation method. American Journal of Public Health.
15.
Childs S. Health information services to the community in the Northern
Region. Information North. Newcastle
16.
Baker E, Melton R, Stange P et al. Health reform and the health of the public: forging community health partnerships. Journal of the Amercian
Medical association. Vol 272, no 16;1276-82. Oct 1994.
17.
Reeve D. Scale Models. Health Service Journal. Vol 101, no 5276;39-40.
Oct 1991.
Jo-Anne Valentine
Public Health Dataset Co-ordinator
February 2003