To answer to this question clusters will need prevalence or incidence information from whichever sources they can get it.
- Prevalence/ incidence data may be directly measured, self-reported (via typically surveys), modelled by generalisation from research literature, or assumed by reference to other comparable populations (e.g. a local authority or health board-level summary statistic).
- Quantitative data tell only part of the story, so access to a rich narrative informed by lived experience can yield critical insights that numbers can’t. Does the qualitative community or professional voice seem fully consistent with the patterns suggested by the numbers? At a basic level, do they agree on what is locally important?
- Asset mapping (as well as informing co-production of solutions) can be considered as a proxy for unmet needs. While a generalisation, voluntary sector services have historically arisen to fill (or improve upon) gaps in statutory provision.
- A blended approach could combine data and insights drawn from traditional needs assessment with that drawn from population health management.
- Are there any repeat themes as you look across topics of interest (e.g. prevalence by deprivation quintile)?