CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Data Quality and ManagementGeographic Information Systems StudiesMedical Coding and Health Information

An effective and efficient approach for manually improving geocoded data

Open access
Goldberg, Daniel W, Wilson, John P, Knoblock, Craig A, Ritz, Beate, Cockburn, Myles G·2008·International Journal of Health Geographics
DOI 10.1186/1476-072x-7-60PMC PMC2612650
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The process of geocoding produces output coordinates of varying degrees of quality. Previous studies have revealed that simply excluding records with low-quality geocodes from analysis can introduce significant bias, but depending on the number and severity of the inaccuracies, their inclusion may also lead to bias. Little quantitative research has been presented on the cost and/or effectiveness of correcting geocodes through manual interactive processes, so the most cost effective methods for improving geocoded data are unclear. The present work investigates the time and effort required to correct geocodes contained in five health-related datasets that represent examples of data commonly used in Health GIS. RESULTS: Geocode correction was attempted on five health-related datasets containing a total of 22,317 records. The complete processing of these data took 11.4 weeks (427 hours), averaging 69 seconds of processing time per record. Overall, the geocodes associated with 12,280 (55%) of records were successfully improved, taking 95 seconds of processing time per corrected record on average across all five datasets. Geocode correction improved the overall match rate (the number of successful matches out of the total attempted) from 79.3 to 95%. The spatial shift between the location of original successfully matched geocodes and their corrected improved counterparts averaged 9.9 km per corrected record. After geocode correction the number of city and USPS ZIP code accuracy geocodes were reduced from 10,959 and 1,031 to 6,284 and 200, respectively, while the number of building centroid accuracy geocodes increased from 0 to 2,261. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that manual geocode correction using a web-based interactive approach is a feasible and cost effective method for improving the quality of geocoded data. The level of effort required varies depending on the type of data geocoded. These results can be used to choose between data improvement options (e.g., manual intervention, pseudocoding/geo-imputation, field GPS readings).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1476-072x-7-60

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Articles about geocoding patient address data evaluated the ability of specific geocoding tools, such as ArcGIS, to increase data quality by improving match rates or positional accuracy.

    “Articles about geocoding patient address data, particularly, evaluated the ability of specific geocoding tools, such as ArcGIS, to increase data quality by improving match rates or positional accuracy.54,73–75”

    From The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [74]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 49 · Cited by 118

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Boscoe FP Ward MH Reynolds P Current practices in spatial analysis of cancer data: data characteristics and data sources for geographic studies of cancer Int J Health Geogr 2004 3 15574197 PMC539245
  2. Cayo MR Talbot TO Positional error in automated geocoding of residential addresses Int J Health Geogr 2003 2 14687425 PMC324564
  3. McElroy JA Remington PL Trentham-Dietz A Roberts SA Newcomber PA Geocoding addresses from a large population based study: Lessons learned Epidemiology 2003 14 399 407 12843762
  4. Rushton G Armstrong MP Gittler J Greene BR Pavlik CE West MM Zimmerman DL Geocoding in Cancer Research: A Review Am J Prev Med 2006 30 S16 S24 16458786 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.011 · DOI
  5. Zandbergen PA A comparison of address point, parcel and street geocoding techniques Comput Environ Urban Syst 2008 32 214 232 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2007.11.006 · DOI
  6. Boscoe FP Rushton G, Armstrong MP, Gittler J, Greene BR, Pavlik CE, West MM, Zimmerman DL The Science and Art of Geocoding Geocoding Health Data – The Use of Geographic Codes in Cancer Prevention and Control, Research, and Practice 2008 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press 95 109
  7. Davis CA Jr Fonseca FT Borges KAV A Flexible Addressing System for Approximate Geocoding 5th Brazilian Symposium on Geoinformatics 2003
  8. DeChello LM Sheehan TJ Spatial analysis of colorectal cancer incidence and proportion of late-stage in Massachusetts residents: 1995–1998 Int J Health Geogr 2007 6 17547744 PMC1904190
  9. Henry KA Boscoe FP Estimating the accuracy of geographical imputation Int J Health Geogr 2008 7 18215308 PMC2266732
  10. Strickland MJ Siffel C Gardner BR Berzen AK Correa A Quantifying geocode location error using GIS methods Environ Health 2007 6 17408484 PMC1852798
  11. Rose KM Wood JL Knowles S Pollitt RA Whitsel EA Diez Roux AV Yoon D Heiss G Historical measures of social context in life course studies: retrospective linkage of addresses to decennial censuses Int J Health Geogr 2004 3 15548332 PMC538253
  12. Beyer KMM Schultz AF Rushton G Rushton G, Armstrong MP, Gittler J, Greene BR, Pavlik CE, West MM, Zimmerman DL Using ZIP Codes as Geocodes in Cancer Research Geocoding Health Data – The Use of Geographic Codes in Cancer Prevention and Control, Research, and Practice 2008 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press 37 68
  13. Brody JG Aschengrau A McKelvey W Rudel R Swartz C Kennedy T Breast cancer risk and historical exposure to pesticides from wide-area applications assessed with GIS Environ Health Perspect 2004 112 889 897 15175178 PMC1242018
  14. Mazumdar S Rushton G Smith BJ Zimmerman DL Donham KJ Geocoding accuracy and the recovery of relationships between environmental exposures and health Int J Health Geogr 2008 7 18387189 PMC2359739
  15. Turabelidze G Zhu BP Schootman M Malone JL Horowitz S Weidinger J Williamson D Simoes E An epidemiologic investigation of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Jefferson County, Missouri, 1998–2002 Neurotoxicology 2008 29 81 86 17950889 10.1016/j.neuro.2007.09.003 · DOI
  16. Zandbergen PA Green JW Error and Bias in Determining Exposure Potential of Children at School Locations Using Proximity-Based GIS Techniques Environ Health Perspect 2007 115 1363 1370 17805429 PMC1964899
  17. Wu J Funk TH Lurmann FW Winer AM Improving Spatial Accuracy of Roadway Networks and Geocoded Addresses Trans GIS 2005 9 585 601 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2005.00236.x · DOI
  18. Schootman M Sterling DA Struthers J Yan Y Laboube T Emo B Higgs G Positional Accuracy and Geographic Bias of Four Methods of Geocoding in Epidemiologic Research Ann Epidemiol 2007 17 364 370 17448683 10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.10.015 · DOI
  19. Whitsel EA Quibrera PM Smith RL Catellier DJ Liao D Henley AC Heiss G Accuracy of commercial geocoding: Assessment and implications Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2006 3 16857050 PMC1557664
  20. Reynolds P Hurley SE Goldberg DE Yerabati S Gunier RB Hertz A Anton-Culver H Bernstein L Deapen D Horn-Ross PL Peel D Pinder R Ross RK West D Wright WE Ziogas A Residential proximity to agricultural pesticide use and incidence of breast cancer in the California Teachers Study cohort Environ Res 2004 96 206 218 15325881 10.1016/j.envres.2004.03.001 · DOI
  21. Suarez L Brender JD Langlois PH Zhan FB Moody K Maternal Exposures to Hazardous Waste Sites and Industrial Facilities and Risk of Neural Tube Defects in Offspring Ann Epidemiol 2007 17 772 777 17689262 10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.05.005 · DOI
  22. Higgs BW Mohtashemi M Grinsdale J Kawamura LM Early Detection of Tuberculosis Outbreaks among the San Francisco Homeless: Trade-Offs Between Spatial Resolution and Temporal Scale PLoS ONE 2007 2 e1284 18074010 10.1371/journal.pone.0001284 PMC2100173 · DOI
  23. Peled R Reuveni H Pliskin JS Benenson I Hatna E Tal A Defining localities of inadequate treatment for childhood asthma: A GIS approach Int J Health Geogr 2006 5 16417626 PMC1363718
  24. Zimmerman DL Rushton G, Armstrong MP, Gittler J, Greene BR, Pavlik CE, West MM, Zimmerman DL Statistical Methods for Incompletely and Incorrectly Geocoded Cancer Data Geocoding Health Data – The Use of Geographic Codes in Cancer Prevention and Control, Research, and Practice 2008 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press 165 180
  25. Zimmerman DL Fang X Mazumdar S Rushton G Modeling the probability distribution of positional errors incurred by residential address geocoding Int J Health Geogr 2007 6 17214903 PMC1781422
  26. Chaput EK Meek JI Heimer R Spatial Analysis of Human Granulocytic Ehrlichiosis near Lyme, Connecticut Emerg Infect Dis 2002 8 943 948 12194771 PMC2732548
  27. Ward MH Nuckols JR Giglierano J Bonner MR Wolter C Airola M Mix W Colt JS Hartge P Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding Epidemiology 2005 16 542 547 15951673 10.1097/01.ede.0000165364.54925.f3 · DOI
  28. Lovasi GS Weiss JC Hoskins R Whitsel EA Rice K Erickson CF Psaty BM Comparing a single-stage geocoding method to a multi-stage geocoding method: how much and where do they disagree? Int J Health Geogr 2007 6 17367520 PMC1838410
  29. Zhan FB Brender JD De Lima I Suarez L Langlois PH Match Rate and Positional Accuracy of Two Geocoding Methods for Epidemiologic Research Ann Epidemiol 2006 16 842 849 17027286 10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Gilboa SM Mendola P Olshan AF Harness C Loomis D Langlois PH Savitz DA Herring AH Comparison of residential geocoding methods in population-based study of air quality and birth defects Environ Res 2006 101 256 262 16483563 10.1016/j.envres.2006.01.004 · DOI
  31. Hurley SE Saunders TM Nivas R Hertz A Reynolds P Post office box addresses: a challenge for geographic information system-based studies Epidemiology 2003 14 386 391 12843760
  32. Allpress JLE Curry RJ Hanchette CL Phillips MJ Wilcosky TC A GIS-based method for household recruitment in a prospective pesticide exposure study Int J Health Geogr 2008 7 18447932 PMC2396611
  33. García-Pérez J Boldo E Ramis R Vidal E Aragonés N Pérez-Gómez B Pollán M López-Abente G Validation of the geographic position of EPER-Spain industries Int J Health Geogr 2008 7 PMC2254386 18190678
  34. Zandbergen PA Influence of geocoding quality on environmental exposure assessment of children living near high traffic roads BMC Public Health 2007 7 17367533 PMC1838415
  35. Chandrasekaran G Ergin MA Gruteser M Martin RP Bootstrapping a Location Service Through Geocoded Postal Addresses 3rd Intl Symposium on Location- and Context-Awareness 2007
  36. FitzMaurice PL Freier JE Geter KD Geospatial field applications within United States Vet Ital 2007 43 477 482 20422524
  37. Levesque M West Virginia State-wide Addressing and Mapping Project Fifth Annual URISA Street Smart and Address Savvy Conference 2003
  38. Steiner R Bejleri I Yang X Kim DH Improving geocoding of traffic crashes using a custom ArcGIS address matching application 22nd Environmental Systems Research Institute International User Conference 2003
  39. Davis CA Jr Address base creation using raster/vector integration URISA 1993 Annual Conference 1993 Atlanta, GA
  40. Ward MH Wartenberg D Invited Commentary: On the Road to Improved Exposure Assessment using Geographic Information Systems Am J Epidemiol 2006 164 208 211 16707652 10.1093/aje/kwj183 · DOI
  41. Gumpertz ML Pickle LW Miller BA Bell BS Geographic Patterns of Advanced Breast Cancer in Los Angeles: Associations with Biological and Sociodemographic Factors (United States) Cancer Causes Control 2006 17 325 339 16489540 10.1007/s10552-005-0513-1 · DOI
  42. Paul BK Rumsey DJ Utilization of health facilities and trained birth attendants for childbirth in rural Bangladesh: an empirical study Soc Sci Med 2002 54 1755 1765 12113433 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00148-4 · DOI
  43. Rushton G Peleg I Banerjee A Smith G West MM Analyzing Geographic Patterns of Disease Incidence: Rates of Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer in Iowa J Med Syst 2004 28 223 236 15446614 10.1023/B:JOMS.0000032841.39701.36 · DOI
  44. Bakshi R Knoblock CA Thakkar S Exploiting online sources to accurately geocode addresses 12th annual ACM international workshop on Geographic information systems 2004
  45. Hofferkamp J Havener L (eds.) Standards for Cancer Registries: Data Standards and Data Dictionary, 2008 12 Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries
  46. Wang K Mulvenon SW Stegman C Anderson T A web-based interactive mapping system of state wide school performance: Integrating Google Maps API technology into academic achievement data J Educ Technol Syst 2007 36 19 28 10.2190/ET.36.1.c · DOI
  47. Oliver MN Matthews KA Siadaty M Hauck FR Pickle LW Geographic bias related to geocoding in epidemiologic studies Int J Health Geogr 2009 4 PMC1298322 16281976
  48. Rull RP Ritz B Historical Pesticide Exposure in California Using Pesticide Use Reports and Land-Use Surveys: An Assessment of Misclassification Error and Bias Environ Health Perspect 2003 111 1582 1589 14527836 PMC1241678
  49. Christen P Churches T Secure Health Data Linkage and Geocoding: Current Approaches and Research Directions National e-Health Privacy and Security Symposium 2006 Brisbane, AU

Authors
Goldberg, D. W., Wilson, J. P., Knoblock, C. A., Ritz, B., & Cockburn, M. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Goldberg, Daniel W
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Health Geographics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
60
ISSN
1476-072X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1476-072x-7-60
PMC
PMC2612650
OpenAlex
W2129634129
Cited by
118
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Health Geographics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0324955)
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • University of Southern California
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS-038367, P50NS038367)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES07048, U54-ES12078, 5P30-ES07048, U54ES012078, R01ES010544, ES10544, P30ES007048)
  • DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographic Information Systems Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
geocoding, cost-effectiveness, spatial change
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Risk Factors, Databases, Factual, Geographic Information Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review