Literature DB >> 22469490

The effect of administrative boundaries and geocoding error on cancer rates in California.

Daniel W Goldberg1, Myles G Cockburn.   

Abstract

Geocoding is often used to produce maps of disease rates from the diagnosis addresses of incident cases to assist with disease surveillance, prevention, and control. In this process, diagnosis addresses are converted into latitude/longitude pairs which are then aggregated to produce rates at varying geographic scales such as Census tracts, neighborhoods, cities, counties, and states. The specific techniques used within geocoding systems have an impact on where the output geocode is located and can therefore have an effect on the derivation of disease rates at different geographic aggregations. This paper investigates how county-level cancer rates are affected by the choice of interpolation method when case data are geocoded to the ZIP code level. Four commonly used areal unit interpolation techniques are applied and the output of each is used to compute crude county-level five-year incidence rates of all cancers in California. We found that the rates observed for 44 out of the 58 counties in California vary based on which interpolation method is used, with rates in some counties increasing by nearly 400% between interpolation methods.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22469490      PMCID: PMC3324674          DOI: 10.1016/j.sste.2012.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol        ISSN: 1877-5845


  47 in total

1.  How best to geo-reference farms? A case study from Cornwall, England.

Authors:  P A Durr; A E A Froggatt
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2002-11-29       Impact factor: 2.670

2.  Post office box addresses: a challenge for geographic information system-based studies.

Authors:  Susan E Hurley; Theresa M Saunders; Rachna Nivas; Andrew Hertz; Peggy Reynolds
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Positional accuracy of geocoded addresses in epidemiologic research.

Authors:  Matthew R Bonner; Daikwon Han; Jing Nie; Peter Rogerson; John E Vena; Jo L Freudenheim
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  The accuracy of address coding and the effects of coding errors.

Authors:  Nataliya Kravets; Wilbur C Hadden
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2005-09-12       Impact factor: 4.078

Review 5.  Geocoding in cancer research: a review.

Authors:  Gerard Rushton; Marc P Armstrong; Josephine Gittler; Barry R Greene; Claire E Pavlik; Michele M West; Dale L Zimmerman
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Potentially avoidable hospitalizations: inequalities in rates between US socioeconomic groups.

Authors:  G Pappas; W C Hadden; L J Kozak; G F Fisher
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Descriptive spatial analysis of the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Great Britain to June 1997.

Authors:  M A Stevenson; J W Wilesmith; J B Ryan; R S Morris; A B Lawson; D U Pfeiffer; D Lin
Journal:  Vet Rec       Date:  2000-09-30       Impact factor: 2.695

8.  Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and minority composition are associated with better potential spatial access to the ground-truthed food environment in a large rural area.

Authors:  Joseph R Sharkey; Scott Horel
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.798

9.  Error and bias in determining exposure potential of children at school locations using proximity-based GIS techniques.

Authors:  Paul A Zandbergen; Joseph W Green
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Positional error in automated geocoding of residential addresses.

Authors:  Michael R Cayo; Thomas O Talbot
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.918

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  GIScience and cancer: State of the art and trends for cancer surveillance and epidemiology.

Authors:  Liora Sahar; Stephanie L Foster; Recinda L Sherman; Kevin A Henry; Daniel W Goldberg; David G Stinchcomb; Joseph E Bauer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Geocoding large population-level administrative datasets at highly resolved spatial scales.

Authors:  Sharon E Edwards; Benjamin Strauss; Marie Lynn Miranda
Journal:  Trans GIS       Date:  2014-08

3.  A research agenda: does geocoding positional error matter in health GIS studies?

Authors:  Geoffrey M Jacquez
Journal:  Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol       Date:  2012-02-14

4.  Disparities in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence by race/ethnicity and geographic area in California: Implications for prevention.

Authors:  Baiyu Yang; Jessica B Liu; Samuel K So; Summer S Han; Sophia S Wang; Andrew Hertz; Salma Shariff-Marco; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Philip S Rosenberg; Mindie H Nguyen; Ann W Hsing
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 6.921

5.  Use of attribute association error probability estimates to evaluate quality of medical record geocodes.

Authors:  Christian A Klaus; Luis E Carrasco; Daniel W Goldberg; Kevin A Henry; Recinda L Sherman
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.918

6.  Examining the spatial congruence between data obtained with a novel activity location questionnaire, continuous GPS tracking, and prompted recall surveys.

Authors:  Martine Shareck; Yan Kestens; Lise Gauvin
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 3.918

7.  An evaluation framework for comparing geocoding systems.

Authors:  Daniel W Goldberg; Morven Ballard; James H Boyd; Narelle Mullan; Carol Garfield; Diana Rosman; Anna M Ferrante; James B Semmens
Journal:  Int J Health Geogr       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 3.918

8.  Smartphone-assisted spatial data collection improves geographic information quality: pilot study using a birth records dataset.

Authors:  Xiaohui Xu; Hui Hu; Sandie Ha; Daikwon Han
Journal:  Geospat Health       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 1.212

9.  An analysis of the process and results of manual geocode correction.

Authors:  Yolanda J McDonald; Michael Schwind; Daniel W Goldberg; Amanda Lampley; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Geospat Health       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 1.212

10.  Air pollution affects lung cancer survival.

Authors:  Sandrah P Eckel; Myles Cockburn; Yu-Hsiang Shu; Huiyu Deng; Frederick W Lurmann; Lihua Liu; Frank D Gilliland
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 9.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.