1 / 23

Barry Milne, Peter Davis, Roy Lay-Yee, Jessica Thomas, Janet Pearson, Oliver Mannion

Modelling the Early Life Course (MEL-C). A simulation tool for policy makers. eGovPoliNet September, 2012. Barry Milne, Peter Davis, Roy Lay-Yee, Jessica Thomas, Janet Pearson, Oliver Mannion COMPASS Research Centre www.compass.auckland.ac.nz. Outline. What is MEL-C? Goals Microsimulation

kalani
Download Presentation

Barry Milne, Peter Davis, Roy Lay-Yee, Jessica Thomas, Janet Pearson, Oliver Mannion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Modelling the Early Life Course (MEL-C). A simulation tool for policy makers.eGovPoliNetSeptember, 2012 Barry Milne, Peter Davis, Roy Lay-Yee, Jessica Thomas, Janet Pearson, Oliver Mannion COMPASS Research Centre www.compass.auckland.ac.nz

  2. Outline • What is MEL-C? • Goals • Microsimulation • End Users • Demonstration • Next steps 2

  3. What is MEL-C? • MEL-C is a 5-year MSI-funded research project (to be completed in 2013) 1. Goals … what are we trying to do? • Develop a software application as a decision-support tool for policy-making 2. Rationale … why are we doing it? • To improve policymakers’ ability to respond to issues concerning children and young people 3. Means … how are we doing it? • By building a computer simulation model with data from existing longitudinal studies to quantify the underlying determinants of progress in the early life course 3

  4. Creating a ‘virtual cohort’ – using micro simulation • We start with a sample of people • Real or synthetic • A birth cohort of children (Christchurch Health & Development Study, CHDS) with individual attributes at the start (n=1265, born 1977) • We then apply statistically-derived rules that allow us to create a ‘virtual cohort’ (synthetic data) to age 13 • A sample of children with typical biographies over the life-course • With allowance for variation around the average (via random allocation) • We then can simulate what might happen if policy were to change • Impact on outcomes when we alter features in our synthetic data set 4

  5. Child characteristics • (age) • gender • ethnicity • Parental characteristics • age at birth of child • ethnicity • education level • Socio-economic position • SES at birth of child • (single-parent status at birth) Health service use e.g. GP visits, hospital admissions, hospital outpatient attendances Education e.g. reading ability Social/Justice e.g. Conduct disorder Employment e.g. parental employment, welfare dependence Psychosocial factors e.g. family functioning: change of parents, change of residence Conceptual framework Structural level Intermediate level Outcome Family/household characteristics e.g. single-parent status, number of children, household size Material circumstances e.g. housing: accommodation type, owned-rented, bedrooms number Behavioural factors e.g. parental smoking Other factors e.g. perinatal factors 5

  6. Scenario testing • Test “what if” scenarios • Projection into the future; alternative settings • Simulate impact of policy change • Important role of end users • Engage key people from government agencies • Adopt a partnership approach • Use their expertise to get better model & policy-relevant scenarios 6

  7. End Users Group • End Users Group: Ministry of Social Development (MSD) Ministry of Health (MOH) Ministry of Education (MinEdu) Ministry of Justice (MOJ)

  8. End User Meetings • May 2011 – MSD - Important scenarios to be tested • July 2011 – MOH - Simulation of use of health services (0-5) • Sept 2011 – MinEdu - Simulation of conduct and education outcomes (5-13) • Nov 2011 – MOJ - Effect of simulation on whole distribution • Feb 2012 – MSD - Validation of tool • April 2012 – MOH - Discussion of how tool might be used; by whom • June 2012 – MinEdu - Report on presentations of MEL-C to other interested parties • Aug 2012 – Statistics New Zealand - Discussion of achievements to date and what is left to do

  9. Simulation tool - Demonstration • Demonstrate modelling the effect of various inputs on an education outcomes (reading) for the child across ages 8-13 • Interrogate system to check base rates of various inputs and outputs • Show how inputs can be flexibly changed • Show the effect of changing inputs on outputs. 9

  10. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  11. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  12. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  13. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  14. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  15. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  16. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  17. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  18. Simulation tool - Demonstration

  19. Next steps • Analyse additional data • Combine together: • Christchurch Health and Development Study • Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study • Pacific Islands Families Study • Te Hoe Nuku Roa Study • Other data sources as available • Analyse as integrated dataset where possible; combine estimates where not • Possibility of using estimates from published studies • Extending range of outcomes and period of life-course covered

  20. Next steps • Synthetic representative base file • Using 2006 Census data to create a representative synthetic unit record file • Tool Development • Subgroup scenarios • Ability to compare unlimited number of scenarios • Macro to run a range of scenarios (i.e., programmable, not just point and click) • More (and better) graphical representations of base-scenario differences

  21. Next steps • Validation • Compare results against other datasets/national rates • Compare scenarios against intervention results • Deployment • Available to users in policy making role • Registration process with training mandatory • Caveats and pitfalls made explicit • User-support available • Remote desktop access • Less technical issues than web-based application • Users group might help future tool development • Funding would be needed

More Related