Dataset Information

Retrospective observational study of ethnicity-gender pay gaps among hospital and community health service doctors in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify differences in average basic pay between groups of National Health Service (NHS) doctors cross-classified by ethnicity and gender. Analyse the extent to which characteristics (grade, specialty, age, hours, etc.) can explain these differences.

Design

Retrospective observational study using repeated cross-section design.

Setting

Hospital and Community Health Service (HCHS) in England.

Participants

All HCHS doctors in England employed by the NHS between 2016 and 2020 appearing in the Digital Electronic Staff Record dataset (average N=99 953 per year).

Main outcome measures

Hours-adjusted full-time equivalent pay gaps; given as raw data and further adjusted for demographic, job, and workplace characteristics (such as grade, specialty, age, whether British nationality, region) using multivariable regression and statistical decomposition techniques.

Results

Pay gaps relative to white men vary with the ethnicity-gender combination. Indian men slightly out-earn white men and Bangladeshi women have a 40% pay gap. In most cases, pay gaps can largely be explained by characteristics that can be measured, especially grade, with the extent varying by specific ethnicity-gender group. However, a portion of pay gaps cannot be explained by characteristics that can be measured.

Conclusions

This study presents new evidence on ethnicity-gender pay gaps among NHS doctors in England using high quality administrative and payroll data. The findings indicate all ethnicity-gender groups earn less than white men on average, except for Indian men. In some cases, these differences cannot be explained giving rise to discussions about the role of discrimination.

SUBMITTER: Woodhams C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8704980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics and management of individuals attending hospital with self-harm and assess changes in management and service quality since an earlier study in 2001, a period in which national guidance has been available.DesignObservational study.SettingA stratified random sample of 32 hospitals in England, UK.Participants6442 individuals presenting with 7689 episodes of self-harm during a 3-month audit period between 2010 and 2011.OutcomeSelf-harm episodes, key aspects of individual management relating to psychosocial assessment and follow-up, and a 21-item measure of service quality.ResultsOverall, 56% (3583/6442) of individuals were women and 51% (3274/6442) were aged under 35 years. Hospitals varied markedly in their management. The proportion of episodes that received a psychosocial assessment by a mental health professional ranged from 22% to 88% (median 58%, IQR 48-70%); the proportion of episodes resulting in admission to general hospitals varied from 22% to 85% (median 54%, IQR 41-63%); a referral for specialist mental health follow-up was made in 11-64% of episodes (median 28%, IQR 22-38%); a referral to non-statutory services was made in 4-62% of episodes (median 15%, IQR 8-23%); 0-21% of episodes resulted in psychiatric admission (median 7%, QR 4-12%). The specialist assessment rate varied by method of harm; the median rate for self-cutting was 45% (IQR 28-63%) vs 58% (IQR 48-73%) for self-poisoning. Compared with the 2001 study, there was little difference in the proportion of episodes receiving specialist assessment; there was a significant increase in general hospital admission but a decrease in referrals for specialist mental health follow-up. However, scores on the service quality scale had increased from a median of 11.5-14.5 (a 26% increase).ConclusionsServices for the hospital management of self-harm remain variable despite national guidelines and policy initiatives. We found no evidence for increasing levels of assessment over time but markers of service quality may have improved. This paper forms part of the study 'Variations in self-harm service delivery: an observational study examining outcomes and temporal trends'. The National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio database registration number: HOMASH 2 (7333). The NIHR Coordinated System for gaining NHS Permission (CSP) registration number: 23226.

Project description:ObjectiveIt is typical in epidemiological research of osteoarthritis (OA) to collect data for the hand, hip, and knee. However, little population-based data exist for this disease in the foot. Thus, we addressed patterns of OA for the foot compared with the hand, hip, and knee spanning 2000/2001 to 2017/2018 in England.MethodsSecondary-care data from 3 143 928 patients with OA of the foot, hand, hip, and knee were derived from the National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Distribution, population prevalence, and incidence of joint-specific OA were stratified by age and sex.ResultsOA incidence increased significantly at the foot [3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0, 4.6)], hand [10.9% (10.1, 11.7)], hip [3.8% (2.9, 4.7)], and knee [2.9% (2.2, 3.6)] per year from 2000/2001 to 2017/2018. A higher proportion of women were diagnosed with OA, whereas greater incidence in men was estimated for the hand and hip. Foot OA presented comparable diagnosis numbers to the hand. More recently during 2012/2013 to 2017/2018, a significant rise in hip OA was estimated among younger adults, whereas knee OA decreased across all age groups. Incidence of OA in the foot and hand were particularly significant among the 75 or older age group, though bimodal age distributions were observed for both sites.ConclusionThe significant increase in secondary care records for OA in England underscores the importance of exploring possible causative factors and identifying groups most at risk. Further detailed data may be particularly important for the hip, which represents significant incidence among younger adults. Greater incidence of OA in the foot compared with the knee emphasizes the need for well-conducted epidemiological research in this area. Monitoring the performance of surgical outcomes at the population-level for this frequently affected yet understudied site could have substantial potential to reduce the socioeconomic burden it represents to the NHS.