Search

Geocoding is the science and process of assigning geographical coordinates (i.e. latitude, longitude) to a postal address. The quality of the geocode can vary dramatically depending on several variables, including incorrect input address data, missing address components, and spelling mistakes. A dataset with a considerable number of geocoding inaccuracies can potentially result in an imprecise analysis and invalid conclusions. There has been little quantitative analysis of the amount of effort (i.e. time) to perform geocoding correction, and how such correction could improve geocode quality type. This study used a low-cost and easy to implement method to improve geocode quality type of an input database (i.e. addresses to be matched) through the processes of manual geocode intervention, and it assessed the amount of effort to manually correct inaccurate geocodes, reported the resulting match rate improvement between the original and the corrected geocodes, and documented the corresponding spatial shift by geocode quality type resulting from the corrections. Findings demonstrated that manual intervention of geocoding resulted in a 90% improvement of geocode quality type, took 42 hours to process, and the spatial shift ranged from 0.02 to 151,368 m. This study provides evidence to inform research teams considering the application of manual geocoding intervention that it is a low-cost and relatively easy process to execute.

Background: The utility of patient attributes associated with the spatiotemporal analysis of medical records lies not just in their values but also the strength of association between them. Estimating the extent to which a hierarchy of conditional probability exists between patient attribute associations such as patient identifying fields, patient and date of diagnosis, and patient and address at diagnosis is fundamental to estimating the strength of association between patient and geocode, and patient and enumeration area. We propose a hierarchy for the attribute associations within medical records that enable spatiotemporal relationships. We also present a set of metrics that store attribute association error probability (AAEP), to estimate error probability for all attribute associations upon which certainty in a patient geocode depends., Methods: A series of experiments were undertaken to understand how error estimation could be operationalized within health data and what levels of AAEP in real data reveal themselves using these methods. Specifically, the goals of this evaluation were to (1) assess if the concept of our error assessment techniques could be implemented by a population-based cancer registry; (2) apply the techniques to real data from a large health data agency and characterize the observed levels of AAEP; and (3) demonstrate how detected AAEP might impact spatiotemporal health research., Results: We present an evaluation of AAEP metrics generated for cancer cases in a North Carolina county. We show examples of how we estimated AAEP for selected attribute associations and circumstances. We demonstrate the distribution of AAEP in our case sample across attribute associations, and demonstrate ways in which disease registry specific operations influence the prevalence of AAEP estimates for specific attribute associations., Conclusions: The effort to detect and store estimates of AAEP is worthwhile because of the increase in confidence fostered by the attribute association level approach to the assessment of uncertainty in patient geocodes, relative to existing geocoding related uncertainty metrics.

Background: Geocoding, the process of converting textual information describing a location into one or more digital geographic representations, is a routine task performed at large organizations and government agencies across the globe. In a health context, this task is often a fundamental first step performed prior to all operations that take place in a spatially-based health study. As such, the quality of the geocoding system used within these agencies is of paramount concern to the agency (the producer) and researchers or policy-makers who wish to use these data (consumers). However, geocoding systems are continually evolving with new products coming on the market continuously. Agencies must develop and use criteria across a number axes when faced with decisions about building, buying, or maintaining any particular geocoding systems. To date, published criteria have focused on one or more aspects of geocode quality without taking a holistic view of a geocoding system's role within a large organization. The primary purpose of this study is to develop and test an evaluation framework to assist a large organization in determining which geocoding systems will meet its operational needs., Methods: A geocoding platform evaluation framework is derived through an examination of prior literature on geocoding accuracy. The framework developed extends commonly used geocoding metrics to take into account the specific concerns of large organizations for which geocoding is a fundamental operational capability tightly-knit into its core mission of processing health data records. A case study is performed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of five geocoding platforms currently available in the Australian geospatial marketplace., Results: The evaluation framework developed in this research is proven successful in differentiating between key capabilities of geocoding systems that are important in the context of a large organization with significant investments in geocoding resources. Results from the proposed methodology highlight important differences across all axes of geocoding system comparisons including spatial data output accuracy, reference data coverage, system flexibility, the potential for tight integration, and the need for specialized staff and/or development time and funding. Such results can empower decisions-makers within large organizations as they make decisions and investments in geocoding systems.

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.)