160 likes | 176 Views
This study assesses geocoding accuracy in Montana’s cancer registry, identifying areas with PO box-only cases and potential census tract misclassification. Results show county and census tract variations, guiding future improvements for sub-county analysis.
E N D
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 • 2.5% have incomplete or incorrect physical address
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?
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”
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%
Results: By Census Tract • There is even more variation at the census tract level • 0% to 96.5% for census tracts
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
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