Your browser version may not work well with NCBI's Web applications. More information here...
1: Am J Prev Med. 2006 Feb;30(2 Suppl):S16-24.
Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Geocoding in cancer research: a review.

Rushton G, Armstrong MP, Gittler J, Greene BR, Pavlik CE, West MM, Zimmerman DL.

Department of Geography, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. gerard-rushton@uiowa.edu

There is now widespread agreement that geographic identifiers (geocodes) should be assigned to cancer records, but little agreement on their form and how they should be assigned, reported, and used. This paper reviews geocoding practice in relation to major purposes and discusses methods to improve the accuracy of geocoded cancer data. Differences in geocoding methods and materials introduce errors of commission and omission into geocoded data. A common source of error comes from the practice of using digital boundary files of dubious quality to place addresses into areas of interest. Geocoded data are linked to demographic, environmental, and health services data, and each data type has unique accuracy considerations. In health services applications, the accuracy of distances computed from geocodes can differ markedly. Privacy and confidentiality issues are important in the use and release of geocoded cancer data. When masking methods are used for disclosure limitation purposes, statistical methods must be adjusted for the locational uncertainty of geocoded data. We conclude that selection of one particular type of geographic area as the geocode may unnecessarily constrain future work. Therefore, the longitude and latitude of each case is the superior basic geocode; all other geocodes of interest can be constructed from this basic identifier.

Publication Types:
PMID: 16458786 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]