Technology evaluation methods support document: Health inequalities

The preferred source of robust health inequalities data will depend on the condition and whether it is treated mainly in primary or secondary care. Datasets such as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics can give an estimate of diagnosed prevalence by social characteristics in primary and secondary care, respectively. Other data sources may be appropriate for specific disease areas. For guidance on using datasets and registries see NICE's real-world evidence framework.

NHS England's CORE20PLUS5 approach, which defines a target population and identifies 5 clinical areas of national priority, could also be used as a guide to identify these circumstances.

High-quality evidence on health inequalities should be gathered for the eligible population in the scope. When data is taken from a different population, for example a more broadly defined disease group, it should be accompanied by a description of the differences. Justification of its use, supported by evidence and expert opinion, should also be provided.  

Differences in treatment benefit across social groups should be shown with the best available evidence. This could include data from trials, real-world evidence or simulation modelling, depending on the population and technology being considered.

There may be social and structural barriers, as well as exclusion criteria, that prevent people from engaging in research. This can potentially lead to bias in evidence on health inequalities and should be documented so the committee can take it into account in its deliberations.