From d62d573127a718ada4f8ac5519d9535cacad0410 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: theorashid Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 14:22:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] submission version --- thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.qmd | 1 + thesis/_thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.html | 2 +- thesis/_thesis/search.json | 2 +- thesis/_thesis/sitemap.xml | 30 +++++++++++++-------------- 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.qmd b/thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.qmd index d4bf1c1..7101553 100644 --- a/thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.qmd +++ b/thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.qmd @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ There was a more prominent gradient for injuries in men (0.5 years) than women ( From 2002 to 2019, life expectancy increased in every district for both women and men (@fig-ch-7-contribution). This was driven largely by decreases in ischaemic heart disease mortality, which contributed gains of between 0.7 and 1.9 years for women between 1.4 and 4.0 years for men. In contrast, mortality from dementias acted in the other direction, forcing life expectancy downwards by between 0.2 and 1.1 years for women and between 0.4 and 1.0 years for women. +Districts with the greatest improvements in life expectancy had large contributions from declines in CVD mortality as well as some of the smallest contributions from increases in mortality from dementias. ::: {#fig-ch-7-contribution layout-ncol=2 fig-scap="Contributions of deaths from specific causes to the difference between the district life expectancy in 2002 and 2019 in 314 local authority districts in England."} diff --git a/thesis/_thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.html b/thesis/_thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.html index d94deb6..27892c5 100644 --- a/thesis/_thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.html +++ b/thesis/_thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.html @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@

7.2.4 Contribution to life expectancy change

-

From 2002 to 2019, life expectancy increased in every district for both women and men (Figure 7.5). This was driven largely by decreases in ischaemic heart disease mortality, which contributed gains of between 0.7 and 1.9 years for women between 1.4 and 4.0 years for men. In contrast, mortality from dementias acted in the other direction, forcing life expectancy downwards by between 0.2 and 1.1 years for women and between 0.4 and 1.0 years for women.

+

From 2002 to 2019, life expectancy increased in every district for both women and men (Figure 7.5). This was driven largely by decreases in ischaemic heart disease mortality, which contributed gains of between 0.7 and 1.9 years for women between 1.4 and 4.0 years for men. In contrast, mortality from dementias acted in the other direction, forcing life expectancy downwards by between 0.2 and 1.1 years for women and between 0.4 and 1.0 years for women. Districts with the greatest improvements in life expectancy had large contributions from declines in CVD mortality as well as some of the smallest contributions from increases in mortality from dementias.

diff --git a/thesis/_thesis/search.json b/thesis/_thesis/search.json index bd89705..f367d80 100644 --- a/thesis/_thesis/search.json +++ b/thesis/_thesis/search.json @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ "href": "Chapters/Chapter7.html#results", "title": "7  Cause-specific mortality at the district level", "section": "7.2 Results", - "text": "7.2 Results\n\n7.2.1 Variation in space\nThe highest probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age in 2019 for any sex-cause-district combination was for ischaemic heart disease for men in Manchester at 0.13 (0.12-0.13) (Figure 7.2 and Figure E.1). For women, all other NCDs had the highest mortality for any disease, with the highest probability of dying of 0.09 (0.08-0.09) in Blackpool (Figure 7.2 and Figure E.8).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.2: Ranked probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age in 314 local authority districts in England in 2002 and 2019 for the twelve leading causes of death and residual groups. Each point shows one district and the vertical line going through the point its 95% credible interval.\n\n\nThe cause of death with the largest inequality in mortality was COPD for women, with a 6.0-fold variation between the districts with the highest and lowest probabilities of dying in 2019. COPD was also one of the most unequal causes of death for men (4.4-fold), but was exceeded in inequality by lower respiratory infections (4.8-fold) and liver cirrhosis (6.7-fold), which was in the top twelve leading causes of death for men but not for women. For women, there was large inequality in the probability of dying from the two leading causes of death by total number of deaths, Alzheimer’s and other dementias (4.1-fold; referred to as dementias hereafter) and ischaemic heart disease (4.4-fold), although there was less variation in mortality for these causes in men (3.6-fold and 3.1-fold). All of these causes presented similar geographies, with the highest probabilities of dying clustered in urban areas, particularly in the North West (figure in Appendix E).\nWith the exception of trachea, bronchus and lung cancers (referred to hereafter as lung cancer; 3.7-fold variation for women and 3.1-fold for men), cancers showed the least geographical inequality, all with less than 1.7-fold variation in the probability of dying. For both sexes, the least unequal cause of death was lymphoma and multiple myeloma (1.2-fold for both sexes).\nThe highest probabilities of dying from diabetes for both sexes were in the east of London (Figure E.6). Specifically, the borough of Newham had the highest mortality for both sexes (0.01 (0.01-0.01) for women and 0.02 (0.01-0.02) for men). The highest probabilities of dying from injuries were in coastal areas and in the urban North West, with the highest probability of dying for men in Blackpool at 0.04 (0.04-0.05) (Figure E.26).\n\n\n7.2.2 Variation over time\nThe largest declines from 2002 to 2019 were seen in CVDs (Figure 7.3). The probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age from ischaemic heart disease (median decline across districts of 67.1% for women and 58.2% for men) and strokes (62.7% and 61.3%) declined in all districts for both sexes, and mortality from all other CVDs decreased in all but the districts of Isle of Wight and Hastings (41.9% for women and 40.5% for men; Figure E.3). These increases were clear outliers which occurred in the residual group of CVDs rather than a defined leading cause of death, suggesting there are localised issues in cause of death assignment rather than true changes in population health. There were also declines in all districts for each sex for diabetes mortality (43.2% and 42.9%).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.3: Ranked change in probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age in 314 local authority districts in England in 2002 and 2019 for the twelve leading causes of death and residual groups. The points are coloured by the regions in England. Each point shows one district and the vertical line going through the point its 95% credible interval. The districts were ranked first by region and then by the posterior median estimate for the probability of dying.\n\n\nIn contrast, the probability of dying from dementias saw the largest increases of any cause, with all districts observing an increase for both sexes (median increase across districts of 106.2% for women and 121.8% for men; Figure E.4). The largest increases were Eastbourne (419.4% (314.2% to 544.5%)) for women and in Kingston upon Hull (235.1% (168.8% to 316.6%)) for men.\nMortality from cancer causes of death declined in all districts and for both sexes with three exceptions: pancreatic cancer mortality, which saw increases in all districts (except a small decrease in Tower Hamlets for women), lung cancer mortality in women and oesophageal cancer mortality in men, which both saw decreases in most districts but increases elsewhere. Mortality from COPD also saw mixed trends, and with wider variability than the observed changes in lung cancer mortality. The probability of dying declined in a larger proportion of districts for men (305 (97.1%)) than for women (215 (68.5%)). The largest increases for both sexes were seen in Kingston upon Hull (45.9% (24.8% to 67.9%) for women and 20.6% (2.9% to 40.7%) for men). See Chapter 8 for detailed results on cancer mortality.\nThe change in probability of dying from all other IMPN was greatly different between the sexes, with 71 (22.6%) districts seeing an increase for women, the largest in Barrow-in-Furness (55.6% (-0.8% to 135.2%)), compared to only 5 (0.02%) districts for men. There were also mixed trends for lower respiratory infections (increases in 13 (4.1%) districts for women and 9 (2.9%) for men), all other NCDs (29 (9.2%) for women and 53 (16.9%) for men), and injuries (116 (36.9%) for women and 9 (2.9%) for men).\nMortality from liver cirrhosis presented dramatic spatial variation in change in mortality over the period 2002-19. There was a contrast between huge decreases in districts in London and increases in the majority (243 (77.4%) districts) of districts elsewhere in the country. The largest increases were in the coastal South West and East of England (Figure E.7).\n\n\n7.2.3 Contribution to life expectancy inequality\nThe district with the highest life expectancy for both sexes in 2019 was the City of London, a small and affluent district in the capital, at 90.1 years for women and 87.4 years1 for men. For women, the district with the lowest life expectancy was Manchester, which was 10.1 years lower than the best-performing district. Blackpool had the lowest life expectancy for men, 13.0 years less than the City of London.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.4: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to the life expectancy difference in 2019 between the district with the highest life expectancy (City of London for both sexes) and all other local authority districts in England. The districts are ordered from the best-performing district downwards, with the side panel showing the difference in life expectancy compared to the best-performing district, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause.\n\n\nThe major contributing cause to inequality with respect to the best-performing district was dementias for women, which was the leading contributor for 254 (80.9%) districts. For men, the all other NCDs group was the leading cause in 220 (70.0%) districts, with dementias ranking first in 64 (20.3%) districts. From the groups of cancers, lung cancer and all other cancers presented clear gradients, with the largest contributions in the worst-performing districts (Figure 7.4). Specifically, lung cancer had a difference in contribution between the 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) and 90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile districts of 0.6 years for women and 0.5 years for men, and all other cancers was 0.5 years for both sexes. There were negative contributions from lung cancer to life expectancy inequality in 50 (15.9%) districts for women and two (0.6%) districts for men. There were strong gradients from the best- to worst-performing districts for all other NCDs (10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\)-90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile differences of 0.9 years for women and 0.8 years for men), ischaemic heart disease (0.5 years and 0.8 years), and COPD (0.6 years and 0.5 years). Contributions to inequality from dementias had large 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\)-90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile differences of 0.8 years for women and 0.5 years for men. There was a more prominent gradient for injuries in men (0.5 years) than women (0.3 years).\n\n\n7.2.4 Contribution to life expectancy change\nFrom 2002 to 2019, life expectancy increased in every district for both women and men (Figure 7.5). This was driven largely by decreases in ischaemic heart disease mortality, which contributed gains of between 0.7 and 1.9 years for women between 1.4 and 4.0 years for men. In contrast, mortality from dementias acted in the other direction, forcing life expectancy downwards by between 0.2 and 1.1 years for women and between 0.4 and 1.0 years for women.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.5: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to the difference between the district life expectancy in 2002 and 2019 in 314 local authority districts in England. The districts are ordered from the district with the largest increase in life expectancy downwards, with the side panel showing the change in life expectancy over that time, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause.\n\n\nIn Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7, I break the overall trend down into two time periods around the year 2010. This both follows the analysis for Figure 5.8, but it is also the year there was a change in government, and a move in fiscal policy towards austerity.\nIn the period 2010-19, life expectancy increase slowed in England, as discussed at the MSOA level in Chapter 5, with three districts experiencing a decline in female life expectancy. For women, lung cancer switched from contributing negatively in most districts (277 (88.2%)) to the change in life expectancy (Figure 7.6 (a)) to positively (312 (99.4%) districts; Figure 7.6 (b)), unlike COPD, for which more districts (252 (80.3%)) saw negative contributions in 2010-2019 compared to 2002-2010 (95 (30.3%)). The contribution for the other cancer groups was similar for the two time periods. All districts saw positive contributions from all other NCDs to life expectancy increase in the second period compared to the first, where only 216 (68.8%) districts contributed positively. The positive contribution from all the CVD groups (ischaemic heart disease, stroke, all other CVDs) was weaker for the second time period, with the negative forcing effect of dementias strengthening massively in all districts. In the years 2010 to 2019, the inequality in progress between districts was driven largely by dementias and all other NCDs, both with a difference in contribution between the 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) and 90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile districts of 3.0 years.\nFor men, the contribution for all cancers groups, including lung cancer, maintained the same picture in each time period. As for women, the slowdown in progress was driven by reductions in the contribution from CVDs in the second time period and the strong negative contributions from dementias in all districts. Injuries, which contributed positively to life expectancy increases in 2002-10 for all districts, saw a reversal with all but 19 (6.1%) districts contributing negatively in the second time period. In the latter period, mortality from ischaemic heart disease, dementias, and all other NCDs were driving the inequality in progress between districts, with differences in contribution between the 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) and 90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile districts of 2.8, 2.9 and 3.0 years respectively. For both sexes and in both time periods, contributions from lymphoma and multiple myeloma were the smallest in magnitude of any cause group (all <0.1 years in each sex-district-time period combination).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women, 2002-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Women, 2010-19\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.6: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to difference between the district life expectancy for women in 2002 and 2010, and in 2010 and 2019, in 314 districts in England. The districts are ordered from the district with the largest increase in life expectancy downwards, with the side panel showing the change in life expectancy over that time, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Men, 2002-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men, 2010-19\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.7: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to difference between the district life expectancy for men in 2002 and 2010, and in 2010 and 2019, in 314 districts in England. The districts are ordered from the district with the largest increase in life expectancy downwards, with the side panel showing the change in life expectancy over that time, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause." + "text": "7.2 Results\n\n7.2.1 Variation in space\nThe highest probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age in 2019 for any sex-cause-district combination was for ischaemic heart disease for men in Manchester at 0.13 (0.12-0.13) (Figure 7.2 and Figure E.1). For women, all other NCDs had the highest mortality for any disease, with the highest probability of dying of 0.09 (0.08-0.09) in Blackpool (Figure 7.2 and Figure E.8).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.2: Ranked probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age in 314 local authority districts in England in 2002 and 2019 for the twelve leading causes of death and residual groups. Each point shows one district and the vertical line going through the point its 95% credible interval.\n\n\nThe cause of death with the largest inequality in mortality was COPD for women, with a 6.0-fold variation between the districts with the highest and lowest probabilities of dying in 2019. COPD was also one of the most unequal causes of death for men (4.4-fold), but was exceeded in inequality by lower respiratory infections (4.8-fold) and liver cirrhosis (6.7-fold), which was in the top twelve leading causes of death for men but not for women. For women, there was large inequality in the probability of dying from the two leading causes of death by total number of deaths, Alzheimer’s and other dementias (4.1-fold; referred to as dementias hereafter) and ischaemic heart disease (4.4-fold), although there was less variation in mortality for these causes in men (3.6-fold and 3.1-fold). All of these causes presented similar geographies, with the highest probabilities of dying clustered in urban areas, particularly in the North West (figure in Appendix E).\nWith the exception of trachea, bronchus and lung cancers (referred to hereafter as lung cancer; 3.7-fold variation for women and 3.1-fold for men), cancers showed the least geographical inequality, all with less than 1.7-fold variation in the probability of dying. For both sexes, the least unequal cause of death was lymphoma and multiple myeloma (1.2-fold for both sexes).\nThe highest probabilities of dying from diabetes for both sexes were in the east of London (Figure E.6). Specifically, the borough of Newham had the highest mortality for both sexes (0.01 (0.01-0.01) for women and 0.02 (0.01-0.02) for men). The highest probabilities of dying from injuries were in coastal areas and in the urban North West, with the highest probability of dying for men in Blackpool at 0.04 (0.04-0.05) (Figure E.26).\n\n\n7.2.2 Variation over time\nThe largest declines from 2002 to 2019 were seen in CVDs (Figure 7.3). The probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age from ischaemic heart disease (median decline across districts of 67.1% for women and 58.2% for men) and strokes (62.7% and 61.3%) declined in all districts for both sexes, and mortality from all other CVDs decreased in all but the districts of Isle of Wight and Hastings (41.9% for women and 40.5% for men; Figure E.3). These increases were clear outliers which occurred in the residual group of CVDs rather than a defined leading cause of death, suggesting there are localised issues in cause of death assignment rather than true changes in population health. There were also declines in all districts for each sex for diabetes mortality (43.2% and 42.9%).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.3: Ranked change in probability of dying between birth and 80 years of age in 314 local authority districts in England in 2002 and 2019 for the twelve leading causes of death and residual groups. The points are coloured by the regions in England. Each point shows one district and the vertical line going through the point its 95% credible interval. The districts were ranked first by region and then by the posterior median estimate for the probability of dying.\n\n\nIn contrast, the probability of dying from dementias saw the largest increases of any cause, with all districts observing an increase for both sexes (median increase across districts of 106.2% for women and 121.8% for men; Figure E.4). The largest increases were Eastbourne (419.4% (314.2% to 544.5%)) for women and in Kingston upon Hull (235.1% (168.8% to 316.6%)) for men.\nMortality from cancer causes of death declined in all districts and for both sexes with three exceptions: pancreatic cancer mortality, which saw increases in all districts (except a small decrease in Tower Hamlets for women), lung cancer mortality in women and oesophageal cancer mortality in men, which both saw decreases in most districts but increases elsewhere. Mortality from COPD also saw mixed trends, and with wider variability than the observed changes in lung cancer mortality. The probability of dying declined in a larger proportion of districts for men (305 (97.1%)) than for women (215 (68.5%)). The largest increases for both sexes were seen in Kingston upon Hull (45.9% (24.8% to 67.9%) for women and 20.6% (2.9% to 40.7%) for men). See Chapter 8 for detailed results on cancer mortality.\nThe change in probability of dying from all other IMPN was greatly different between the sexes, with 71 (22.6%) districts seeing an increase for women, the largest in Barrow-in-Furness (55.6% (-0.8% to 135.2%)), compared to only 5 (0.02%) districts for men. There were also mixed trends for lower respiratory infections (increases in 13 (4.1%) districts for women and 9 (2.9%) for men), all other NCDs (29 (9.2%) for women and 53 (16.9%) for men), and injuries (116 (36.9%) for women and 9 (2.9%) for men).\nMortality from liver cirrhosis presented dramatic spatial variation in change in mortality over the period 2002-19. There was a contrast between huge decreases in districts in London and increases in the majority (243 (77.4%) districts) of districts elsewhere in the country. The largest increases were in the coastal South West and East of England (Figure E.7).\n\n\n7.2.3 Contribution to life expectancy inequality\nThe district with the highest life expectancy for both sexes in 2019 was the City of London, a small and affluent district in the capital, at 90.1 years for women and 87.4 years1 for men. For women, the district with the lowest life expectancy was Manchester, which was 10.1 years lower than the best-performing district. Blackpool had the lowest life expectancy for men, 13.0 years less than the City of London.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.4: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to the life expectancy difference in 2019 between the district with the highest life expectancy (City of London for both sexes) and all other local authority districts in England. The districts are ordered from the best-performing district downwards, with the side panel showing the difference in life expectancy compared to the best-performing district, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause.\n\n\nThe major contributing cause to inequality with respect to the best-performing district was dementias for women, which was the leading contributor for 254 (80.9%) districts. For men, the all other NCDs group was the leading cause in 220 (70.0%) districts, with dementias ranking first in 64 (20.3%) districts. From the groups of cancers, lung cancer and all other cancers presented clear gradients, with the largest contributions in the worst-performing districts (Figure 7.4). Specifically, lung cancer had a difference in contribution between the 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) and 90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile districts of 0.6 years for women and 0.5 years for men, and all other cancers was 0.5 years for both sexes. There were negative contributions from lung cancer to life expectancy inequality in 50 (15.9%) districts for women and two (0.6%) districts for men. There were strong gradients from the best- to worst-performing districts for all other NCDs (10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\)-90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile differences of 0.9 years for women and 0.8 years for men), ischaemic heart disease (0.5 years and 0.8 years), and COPD (0.6 years and 0.5 years). Contributions to inequality from dementias had large 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\)-90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile differences of 0.8 years for women and 0.5 years for men. There was a more prominent gradient for injuries in men (0.5 years) than women (0.3 years).\n\n\n7.2.4 Contribution to life expectancy change\nFrom 2002 to 2019, life expectancy increased in every district for both women and men (Figure 7.5). This was driven largely by decreases in ischaemic heart disease mortality, which contributed gains of between 0.7 and 1.9 years for women between 1.4 and 4.0 years for men. In contrast, mortality from dementias acted in the other direction, forcing life expectancy downwards by between 0.2 and 1.1 years for women and between 0.4 and 1.0 years for women. Districts with the greatest improvements in life expectancy had large contributions from declines in CVD mortality as well as some of the smallest contributions from increases in mortality from dementias.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.5: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to the difference between the district life expectancy in 2002 and 2019 in 314 local authority districts in England. The districts are ordered from the district with the largest increase in life expectancy downwards, with the side panel showing the change in life expectancy over that time, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause.\n\n\nIn Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7, I break the overall trend down into two time periods around the year 2010. This both follows the analysis for Figure 5.8, but it is also the year there was a change in government, and a move in fiscal policy towards austerity.\nIn the period 2010-19, life expectancy increase slowed in England, as discussed at the MSOA level in Chapter 5, with three districts experiencing a decline in female life expectancy. For women, lung cancer switched from contributing negatively in most districts (277 (88.2%)) to the change in life expectancy (Figure 7.6 (a)) to positively (312 (99.4%) districts; Figure 7.6 (b)), unlike COPD, for which more districts (252 (80.3%)) saw negative contributions in 2010-2019 compared to 2002-2010 (95 (30.3%)). The contribution for the other cancer groups was similar for the two time periods. All districts saw positive contributions from all other NCDs to life expectancy increase in the second period compared to the first, where only 216 (68.8%) districts contributed positively. The positive contribution from all the CVD groups (ischaemic heart disease, stroke, all other CVDs) was weaker for the second time period, with the negative forcing effect of dementias strengthening massively in all districts. In the years 2010 to 2019, the inequality in progress between districts was driven largely by dementias and all other NCDs, both with a difference in contribution between the 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) and 90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile districts of 3.0 years.\nFor men, the contribution for all cancers groups, including lung cancer, maintained the same picture in each time period. As for women, the slowdown in progress was driven by reductions in the contribution from CVDs in the second time period and the strong negative contributions from dementias in all districts. Injuries, which contributed positively to life expectancy increases in 2002-10 for all districts, saw a reversal with all but 19 (6.1%) districts contributing negatively in the second time period. In the latter period, mortality from ischaemic heart disease, dementias, and all other NCDs were driving the inequality in progress between districts, with differences in contribution between the 10\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) and 90\\(^{\\text{th}}\\) percentile districts of 2.8, 2.9 and 3.0 years respectively. For both sexes and in both time periods, contributions from lymphoma and multiple myeloma were the smallest in magnitude of any cause group (all <0.1 years in each sex-district-time period combination).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Women, 2002-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Women, 2010-19\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.6: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to difference between the district life expectancy for women in 2002 and 2010, and in 2010 and 2019, in 314 districts in England. The districts are ordered from the district with the largest increase in life expectancy downwards, with the side panel showing the change in life expectancy over that time, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a) Men, 2002-10\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b) Men, 2010-19\n\n\n\n\nFigure 7.7: Contributions of deaths from specific causes to difference between the district life expectancy for men in 2002 and 2010, and in 2010 and 2019, in 314 districts in England. The districts are ordered from the district with the largest increase in life expectancy downwards, with the side panel showing the change in life expectancy over that time, by summing over the causes. The top panel shows the contribution for each district for each cause." }, { "objectID": "Chapters/Chapter7.html#discussion", diff --git a/thesis/_thesis/sitemap.xml b/thesis/_thesis/sitemap.xml index a35c2b6..4535263 100644 --- a/thesis/_thesis/sitemap.xml +++ b/thesis/_thesis/sitemap.xml @@ -2,62 +2,62 @@ https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/index.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.624Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.671Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter2.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.634Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.681Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter3.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.639Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.685Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter4.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.643Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.689Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter5.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.649Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.696Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter6.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.655Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.701Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter7.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.665Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.711Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter8.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.671Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.717Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Chapters/Chapter9.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.675Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.721Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/references.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.685Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.731Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Appendices/AppendixA.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.688Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.734Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Appendices/AppendixB.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.693Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.740Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Appendices/AppendixC.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.695Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.742Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Appendices/AppendixD.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.700Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.746Z https://theorashid.github.io/thesis/Appendices/AppendixE.html - 2023-09-16T13:33:55.706Z + 2023-09-25T13:07:42.751Z