Literature DB >> 21086822

Improving geocoding outcomes for the Nebraska Cancer Registry: learning from proven practices.

Ge Lin1, Judy Gray, Ming Qu.   

Abstract

This report summarizes geocoding improvement experiments in the Nebraska Cancer Registry. An initial assessment of previous geocoding suggests that some proven geocoding procedures have not been followed, and overall results were unacceptable. This study concluded that when updating different address files from different time periods, it is sufficient to use the most recent street centerline database. The combination of match score of 80 and spelling sensitivity of 80 in ESRI's ArcGIS geocoder is sufficient for most geocoding purposes. Given the sizable number of unmatched addresses, the Google Maps geocoding service was used. A comparison of 1500 high-quality addresses that were matched by both Google Maps and ArcGIS geocoders shows that, in most cases, the location discrepancies between the two were acceptable. The median distance between each pair of 1500 coded locations was 36.6 meters, with an average of 92.8 meters. Distance discrepancies were larger in urban fringe areas and smaller toward urban centers. It was concluded that by strictly following proven procedures including address coding specification, Internet-based White Pages for reverse address finding, and Internet-based geocoding, a 90% or even a 95% match rate is achievable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21086822

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Registry Manag        ISSN: 1945-6131


  5 in total

1.  The Association Between Distances Traveled for Care and Treatment Choices for Pelvic Floor Disorders in a Rural Southwestern Population.

Authors:  Gena C Dunivan; Pamela S Fairchild; Sara B Cichowski; Rebecca G Rogers
Journal:  J Health Dispar Res Pract       Date:  2014

Review 2.  A Review and Framework for Categorizing Current Research and Development in Health Related Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Studies.

Authors:  A K Lyseen; C Nøhr; E M Sørensen; O Gudes; E M Geraghty; N T Shaw; C Bivona-Tellez
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

3.  A multi-stage approach to maximizing geocoding success in a large population-based cohort study through automated and interactive processes.

Authors:  Jennifer S Sonderman; Michael T Mumma; Sarah S Cohen; Elizabeth L Cope; William J Blot; Lisa B Signorello
Journal:  Geospat Health       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.212

4.  Comparing methods of performing geographically targeted rural health surveillance.

Authors:  David C Lee; Nancy A McGraw; Kelly M Doran; Amanda K Mengotto; Sara L Wiener; Andrew J Vinson; Lorna E Thorpe
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2020-11-23

5.  The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lily A Cook; Jonathan Sachs; Nicole G Weiskopf
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 4.497

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.