Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ribeiro, AI
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Olhero, A, Teixeira, H, Magalhães, A, Pina, MF
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/114886
Resumo: Various address georeferencing (AG) tools are currently available. But little is known about the quality of each tool. Using data from the EPIPorto cohort we compared the most commonly used AG tools in terms of positional error (PE) and subjects' misclassification according to census tract socioeconomic status (SES), a widely used variable in epidemiologic studies. Participants of the EPIPorto cohort (n = 2427) were georeferenced using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Google Earth (GE). One hundred were randomly selected and georeferenced using three additional tools: 1) cadastral maps (gold-standard); 2) Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and 3) Google Earth, single and in a batch. Mean PE and the proportion of misclassified individuals were compared. Google Earth showed lower PE than GIS, but 10% of the addresses were imprecisely positioned. Thirty-eight, 27, 16 and 14% of the participants were located in the wrong census tract by GIS, GPS, GE (batch) and GE (single), respectively (p<0.001). Misclassification according to SES was less frequent but still non-negligible −14.4, 8.1, 4.2 and 2% (p<0.001). The quality of georeferencing differed substantially between AG tools. GE seems to be the best tool, but only if prudently used. Epidemiologic studies using spatial data should start including information on the quality and accuracy of their georeferencing tools and spatial datasets.
id RCAP_136df0eb6197419868cbe8caf96e2736
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/114886
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware OfGeoreferencingPublic HealthVarious address georeferencing (AG) tools are currently available. But little is known about the quality of each tool. Using data from the EPIPorto cohort we compared the most commonly used AG tools in terms of positional error (PE) and subjects' misclassification according to census tract socioeconomic status (SES), a widely used variable in epidemiologic studies. Participants of the EPIPorto cohort (n = 2427) were georeferenced using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Google Earth (GE). One hundred were randomly selected and georeferenced using three additional tools: 1) cadastral maps (gold-standard); 2) Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and 3) Google Earth, single and in a batch. Mean PE and the proportion of misclassified individuals were compared. Google Earth showed lower PE than GIS, but 10% of the addresses were imprecisely positioned. Thirty-eight, 27, 16 and 14% of the participants were located in the wrong census tract by GIS, GPS, GE (batch) and GE (single), respectively (p<0.001). Misclassification according to SES was less frequent but still non-negligible −14.4, 8.1, 4.2 and 2% (p<0.001). The quality of georeferencing differed substantially between AG tools. GE seems to be the best tool, but only if prudently used. Epidemiologic studies using spatial data should start including information on the quality and accuracy of their georeferencing tools and spatial datasets.20142014-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10216/114886eng1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0114130Ribeiro, AIOlhero, ATeixeira, HMagalhães, APina, MFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-29T13:00:30Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/114886Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T23:31:38.144334Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
title Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
spellingShingle Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
Ribeiro, AI
Georeferencing
Public Health
title_short Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
title_full Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
title_fullStr Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
title_full_unstemmed Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
title_sort Tools for Address Georeferencing – Limitations and Opportunities Every Public Health Professional Should Be Aware Of
author Ribeiro, AI
author_facet Ribeiro, AI
Olhero, A
Teixeira, H
Magalhães, A
Pina, MF
author_role author
author2 Olhero, A
Teixeira, H
Magalhães, A
Pina, MF
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ribeiro, AI
Olhero, A
Teixeira, H
Magalhães, A
Pina, MF
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Georeferencing
Public Health
topic Georeferencing
Public Health
description Various address georeferencing (AG) tools are currently available. But little is known about the quality of each tool. Using data from the EPIPorto cohort we compared the most commonly used AG tools in terms of positional error (PE) and subjects' misclassification according to census tract socioeconomic status (SES), a widely used variable in epidemiologic studies. Participants of the EPIPorto cohort (n = 2427) were georeferenced using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Google Earth (GE). One hundred were randomly selected and georeferenced using three additional tools: 1) cadastral maps (gold-standard); 2) Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and 3) Google Earth, single and in a batch. Mean PE and the proportion of misclassified individuals were compared. Google Earth showed lower PE than GIS, but 10% of the addresses were imprecisely positioned. Thirty-eight, 27, 16 and 14% of the participants were located in the wrong census tract by GIS, GPS, GE (batch) and GE (single), respectively (p<0.001). Misclassification according to SES was less frequent but still non-negligible −14.4, 8.1, 4.2 and 2% (p<0.001). The quality of georeferencing differed substantially between AG tools. GE seems to be the best tool, but only if prudently used. Epidemiologic studies using spatial data should start including information on the quality and accuracy of their georeferencing tools and spatial datasets.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014
2014-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10216/114886
url http://hdl.handle.net/10216/114886
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1932-6203
10.1371/journal.pone.0114130
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799135626292887553