1 / 16

Evaluation of Geocoding Quality in Montana

Evaluation of Geocoding Quality in Montana. Considerations for Sub-county analysis Heather Zimmerman. Background. Montana Central Tumor Registry (MCTR) routinely geocodes address at diagnosis using the NAACCR geocoder 16% of cases have only PO Box reported

mount
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of Geocoding Quality in Montana

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Geocoding Quality in Montana Considerations for Sub-county analysis Heather Zimmerman

  2. Background • Montana Central Tumor Registry (MCTR) routinely geocodes address at diagnosis using the NAACCR geocoder • 16% of cases have only PO Box reported • 2.5% have incomplete or incorrect physical address

  3. Evaluation Questions • What areas of Montana have the highest proportion of cases with PO box only? • What areas have the highest potential of census tract misclassification?

  4. Methods • Analysis included all cases of invasive cancer diagnosed from 2003 to 2016 among Montana residents. • GIS coordinate Quality (item #366) grouped into 3 categories • Street level or better: codes 00-05 • Zip code or city centroid: codes 06-09 and 11 • PO box zip centroid: code 10 • Cases with codes 98 “Unknown” (only 12 cases) were excluded from analysis • There were no cases with codes 12 “County centroid” or 99 “Unmatchable”

  5. Results

  6. Results: Year of Diagnosis

  7. Results: By County • Percent of cases geocoded to the street level or better varies widely between counties • 95.1% in Yellowstone • 26% in Prairie • Median is 69.5%

  8. Results: By County

  9. Results: By Census Tract • There is even more variation at the census tract level • 0% to 96.5% for census tracts

  10. Results: By Census Tract

  11. Results: By Census Tract

  12. Cancer Incidence Analysis in Butte

  13. Let’s take another look at Butte

  14. Another Example

  15. Conclusions • Our most rural areas have the highest proportion of cases with PO box only • Urban areas have the highest potential for census tract misclassification

  16. Next Steps • Reduce the number of cases with PO box only • Working with Montana Cancer Registrar’s Association to identify quality improvement projects to get physical address for residents with a PO Box • Use ZCTA for sub-county analysis when timeframe is limited to available population data • Carefully assess GIS coordinate quality before doing analysis at the census tract level

More Related