1 / 15

State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries

State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries. NAACCR GIS Committee Recinda L Sherman, MPH, CTR NAACCR Annual Meeting, Detroit, Michigan June 7, 2007. State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries. Two surveys were conducted 1999 by NPCR

patriciahernandez
Download Presentation

State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries

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. State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries NAACCR GIS Committee Recinda L Sherman, MPH, CTR NAACCR Annual Meeting, Detroit, Michigan June 7, 2007

  2. State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries • Two surveys were conducted • 1999 by NPCR • Ric Skinner, formerly with NJ Cancer Registry • 2005 by NAACCR • NAACCR GIS Committee

  3. Rationale for survey Desire to support local cancer control activities at geographic levels lower than county To provide tools to improve understanding of effects of cancer on populations within state To support small area analysis Increase data quality QA/QC of address data and for geocoding Reported Benefits Forces QA/QC of demographic data when geocoding New ways of presenting data Decreases response time to data requests Supports cancer prevention and control activities Enables additional research Time & distance studies for services Cluster investigation Hypothesis generation Merge with environmental and sociodemographic factors Rationale/Benefits 1999

  4. 1999 Survey 44% currently geocoding 40% currently using GIS 68 Registries Contacted 44 responded (65%) 2005 Survey 82% currently geocoding 62% currently using GIS 72 Registries Contacted 47 Responded (65%) Extent of Activities(1999 & 2005)

  5. 1999 Survey 70% of those geocoding clean addresses Correct misspellings, correct ‘no matches’ after batch match, correct for NAACCR edits, in-house standards, addresses standardization Use phone books, paper maps, Zip code directories 2005 Survey 83% of those geocoding clean addresses Variety of methods of data cleaning None, parsing, USPS standardization Variety of methods used for geocoding No interactive, multiple street reference files, level of geocoding (zip code, street, city), hand geocoding Variety of software and underlying street reference files used Geocoding Data Quality(1999 & 2005)

  6. Geocoding Results 2005 • On average, the number of geocodes attempted each year is 1.7 times the annual case load • On average, 16% of attempted geocodes failed the batch match • On average, 7% of attempted geocodes were ungeocodable

  7. GIS Implementation Obstacles(1999 & 2005) • Data quality • Institutional support • IT issues • Qualified personnel • Training

  8. Summation 1999 to 2005 • Considerable growth in geocoding/GIS activities since 1999 • Current needs have also grown • Standardization/best practices • Each registry is a “renegade” • Training • Software, basic GIS concepts/techniques • Applicability of data use • Interpretability of data results • Spatial Analysis methodology • Institutional support • Institutional investment

  9. Training Priorities 2005 Ranked priorities for training: 1. Geocoding methodological issues 2. GIS applications in cancer control 3. Basic mapping methodological issues 4. Spatial analysis 5. Web-based GIS applications 6. Data/map resources 90% would benefit from on-line training

  10. Future Priorities 2005 Ranked priorities for future GIS activities: 1. Geocoding, address cleaning, standardization 2. Cartography 3. Spatial statistical analysis 4. Application for GIS in healthcare cancer control 5. Internet mapping applications

  11. Key Point #1 • Efforts needed to improve/standardize geocoding • A variety of methods is used to prepare and process data for geocoding. • A variety of software and reference files is used for geocoding and GIS.     This indicates a need for standardization of methods across registries to ensure comparable data (demonstrated need for Geocoding Guidelines).

  12. Key Point #2 • Lack of institutional support • Of the registries currently geocoding and using GIS • 63% have staff with geocoding or GIS in their job descriptions • Of these with GIS or geocoding in job descriptions, the average percent of time allocated is 28% • 58% feel the level of support for GIS activities is not sufficient • This is for current activity level only This may indicate lack of institutional support.

  13. Key Point #3 • Training needs are immediate and long-term • The majority of registries have the data available in geocoded form but not all these registries are currently using the data in a GIS. • The majority of registries not currently using GIS have implementation plans. This likely indicates evolving training needs.

  14. Geographical Information Systems • “a system of hardware, software, data, people, organizations and institutional arrangements for collecting, storing, analyzing and disseminating information about areas of the earth” • Dueker and Kjerne, 1989

  15. Acknowledgements Results from the 1999 GIS survey were provided by Ric Skinner, Baystate Health (previously with the NJ State Cancer Registry) NAACCR GIS Committee

More Related