18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      On the wrong side of the tracts? Evaluating the accuracy of geocoding in public health research.

      American Journal of Public Health
      Abstracting and Indexing as Topic, economics, standards, Bias (Epidemiology), Censuses, Costs and Cost Analysis, Data Collection, Databases, Factual, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Maps as Topic, New England, Population Surveillance, methods, Public Health, Residence Characteristics, statistics & numerical data, Time Factors

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study sought to determine the accuracy of geocoding for public health databases. A test file of 70 addresses, 50 of which involved errors, was generated, and the file was geocoded to the census tract and block group levels by 4 commercial geocoding firms. Also, the "real world" accuracy of the best-performing firm was evaluated. Accuracy rates in regard to geocoding of the test file ranged from 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 32%, 56%) to 84% (95% CI = 73%, 92%). The geocoding firm identified as having the best accuracy rate correctly geocoded 96% of the addresses obtained from the public health databases. Public health studies involving geocoded databases should evaluate and report on methods used to verify accuracy.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article