Search

BACKGROUND There is increasing interest in the spatial analysis of suicide data to identify high-risk (often public) locations likely to benefit from access restriction measures. The identification of such locations, however, relies on accurately geocoded data. This study aims to examine the extent to which common completeness and positional spatial errors are present in suicide data due to the underlying geocoding process. METHODS Using Australian suicide mortality data from the National Coronial Information System for the period of 2008-2017, we compared the custodian automated geocoding process to an alternate multiphase process. Descriptive and kernel density cluster analyses were conducted to ascertain data completeness (address matching rates) and positional accuracy (distance revised) differences between the two datasets. RESULTS The alternate geocoding process initially improved address matching from 67.8% in the custodian dataset to 78.4%. Additional manual identification of nonaddress features (such as cliffs or bridges) improved overall match rates to 94.6%. Nearly half (49.2%) of nonresidential suicide locations were revised more than 1,000 m from data custodian coordinates. Spatial misattribution rates were greatest at the smallest levels of geography. Kernel density maps showed clear misidentification of hotspots relying solely on autogeocoded data. CONCLUSION Suicide incidents that occur at nonresidential addresses are being erroneously geocoded to centralized fall-back locations in autogeocoding processes, which can lead to misidentification of suicide clusters. Our findings provide insights toward defining the nature of the problem and refining geocoding processes, so that suicide data can be used reliably for the detection of suicide hotspots. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B862.

Background Rates of suicide appear to be increasing, indicating a critical need for more effective prevention initiatives. To increase the efficacy of future prevention initiatives, we examined the spatial distribution of suicide deaths and suicide attempts in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, to identify where high incidence ‘suicide clusters’ were occurring. Such clusters represent candidate regions where intervention is critically needed, and likely to have the greatest impact, thus providing an evidence-base for the targeted prioritisation of resources. Methods Analysis is based on official suicide mortality statistics for NSW, provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and hospital separations for non-fatal intentional self-harm, provided through the NSW Health Admitted Patient Data Collection at a Statistical Area 2 (SA2) geography. Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques were applied to detect suicide clusters occurring between 2005 and 2013 (aggregated), for persons aged over 5 years. The final dataset contained 5466 mortality and 86,017 non-fatal intentional self-harm cases. Results In total, 25 Local Government Areas were identified as primary or secondary likely candidate regions for intervention. Together, these regions contained approximately 200 SA2 level suicide clusters, which represented 46% (n = 39,869) of hospital separations and 43% (n = 2330) of suicide deaths between 2005 and 2013. These clusters primarily converged on the Eastern coastal fringe of NSW. Conclusions Crude rates of suicide deaths and intentional self-harm differed at the Local Government Areas (LGA) level in NSW. There was a tendency for primary suicide clusters to occur within metropolitan and coastal regions, rather than rural areas. The findings demonstrate the importance of taking geographical variation of suicidal behaviour into account, prior to development and implementation of prevention initiatives, so that such initiatives can target key problem areas where they are likely to have maximal impact.

Background To develop a method to use survey data to establish catchment areas of primary care or Primary Care Service Areas. Primary Care Service Areas are small areas, the majority of patients resident in which obtain their primary care services from within the geography. Methods The data are from a large health survey (n =267,153, year 2006–2009) linked to General Practitioner service use data (year 2002–2010) from New South Wales, Australia. Our methods broadly follow those used previously by researchers in the United States of America and Switzerland, with significant modifications to improve robustness. This algorithm allocates post code areas to Primary Care Service Areas that receive the plurality of patient visits from the post code area. Results Consistent with international findings the median Localization Index or the median percentage of patients that obtain their primary care from within a Primary Care Service Area is 55% with localization increasing with rurality. Conclusions With the additional methodological refinements in this study, Australian Primary Care Service Areas have great potential to be of value to policymakers and researchers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1476-072X-13-38) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives To estimate undiagnosed diabetes prevalence from general practitioner (GP) practice data and identify areas with high levels of undiagnosed and diagnosed diabetes. Design Data from the North-West Adelaide Health Survey (NWAHS) were used to develop a model which predicts total diabetes at a small area. This model was then applied to cross-sectional data from general practices to predict the total level of expected diabetes. The difference between total expected and already diagnosed diabetes was defined as undiagnosed diabetes prevalence and was estimated for each small area. The patterns of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes were mapped to highlight the areas of high prevalence. Setting North-West Adelaide, Australia. Participants This study used two population samples—one from the de-identified GP practice data (n=9327 active patients, aged 18 years and over) and another from NWAHS (n=4056, aged 18 years and over). Main outcome measures Total diabetes prevalence, diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes prevalence at GP practice and Statistical Area Level 1. Results Overall, it was estimated that there was one case of undiagnosed diabetes for every 3–4 diagnosed cases among the 9327 active patients analysed. The highest prevalence of diagnosed diabetes was seen in areas of lower socioeconomic status. However, the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was substantially higher in the least disadvantaged areas. Conclusions The method can be used to estimate population prevalence of diabetes from general practices wherever these data are available. This approach both flags the possibility that undiagnosed diabetes may be a problem of less disadvantaged social groups, and provides a tool to identify areas with high levels of unmet need for diabetes care which would enable policy makers to apply geographic targeting of effective interventions.