Data Briefs

Quality of Life Survey IV (2015/16): Health

The GCRO’s Quality of Life IV (2015/16) Health Data Brief provides an overview of key findings from a set of questions in the survey specifically designed to gather insights about respondents’ personal health, access to and use of healthcare facilities, and their sense of wellness. Overall, the data reveals a strong relationship between respondents’ levels of income and their health and wellness. As affluence increased, respondents were more likely to have medical aid, use private healthcare, report high satisfaction with the healthcare facilities they usually use, and report better personal health. There were also strong relationships with level of education and population group.

The data shows that the majority of respondents usually made use of public healthcare facilities. However, satisfaction with public healthcare facilities was substantially lower than satisfaction with private healthcare facilities. While most respondents reported that household members were able to obtain healthcare when they needed it, a few were unable to get the care they required and cited financial constraints and inadequate facilities or staff as the main reasons for this.

While some respondents avoided public healthcare facilities due to concerns about the quality of care received, there were also respondents who sought out public healthcare facilities specifically for its good quality of care. Although only one in ten respondents were visited at their home by a healthcare worker, the data suggests that outreach efforts are effectively being directed towards less affluent areas and individuals.

This Data Brief also presents important insights into self-reported health and well-being across the province. Nine out of ten respondents in Gauteng described their health status as good or excellent; very few indicated that their health status interferes with their daily work or social activities; and the majority reported positive subjective well-being.

Across a number of variables this Data Brief provides information for each of Gauteng’s health districts, illustrating both areas of strength and where there is room for improvement. Information on the use of various healthcare services, and how respondents experience the services they receive, can help with health service planning, and understanding how to increase satisfaction.

Quality of Life Survey IV (2015/16): Social Cohesion

GCRO’s Data Brief No. 8, part of a series to be released on the QoL IV (2015/16) survey results, reports on data related to social cohesion in Gauteng. Social cohesion is not something which can be quantified as a whole, but the QoL IV survey does provide several important indications of societal attitudes and behaviours which threaten social cohesion. This is in addition to the variety of perceptions of Gauteng residents gathered in QoL IV, including perceived quality of life, socio-economic circumstances, satisfaction with service delivery, values, psycho-social and political attitudes, etc.

Key findings include the following. First, respondents have quite divergent views for each measure. Some respondents believe there is social tolerance and trust, while others believe there is not. Some provide responses which indicate intolerant attitudes, while others are accepting of difference. Second, there are different trends over time for the various questions that we analyse. There are some notable positive trends regarding improved tolerance between different race groups and towards cross border migrants. Nevertheless there are concerning patterns, such as a percentage of people who endorse violence against foreigners and violence towards gay and lesbian people. Third, those who are intolerant are not distributed evenly across the geography of the province. Finally, different forms of intolerance do not always overlap spatially with one another. For example, some wards have higher proportions of respondents who believe that homophobic violence is acceptable but the same wards do not necessarily endorse xenophobic violence to the same extent.