Salvador CC, Lopes AADS, Resendes D, Demarco FF, Justina MDD, de Saboya RT, Rech CR, d’Orsi E. Geocoding processes in cohort studies: methods applied in the EpiFloripa Aging.
Rev Saude Publica 2023;
57:88. [PMID:
37971072 PMCID:
PMC10681526 DOI:
10.11606/s1518-8787.2023057004976]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Accepted: 01/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To describe the process and epidemiological implications of georeferencing in EpiFloripa Aging samples (2009-2019).
METHOD
The EpiFloripa Aging Cohort Study sought to investigate and monitor the living and health conditions of the older adult population (≥ 60) of Florianópolis in three study waves (2009/2010, 2013/2014, 2017/2019). With an automatic geocoding tool, the residential addresses were spatialized, allowing to investigate the effect of the georeferencing sample losses regarding 19 variables, evaluated in the three waves. The influence of different neighborhood definitions (census tracts, Euclidean buffers, and buffers across the street network) was examined in the results of seven variables: area, income, residential density, mixed land use, connectivity, health unit count, and public open space count. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the differences between neighborhood definitions according to three variables: contextual income, residential density, and land use diversity.
RESULT
The losses imposed by geocoding (6%, n = 240) caused no statistically significant difference between the total sample and the geocoded sample. The analysis of the study variables suggests that the geocoding process may have included a higher proportion of participants with better income, education, and living conditions. The correlation coefficients showed little correspondence between measures calculated by the three neighborhood definitions (r = 0.37-0.54). The statistical difference between the variables calculated by buffers and census tracts highlights limitations in their use in the description of geospatial attributes.
CONCLUSION
Despite the challenges related to geocoding, such as inconsistencies in addresses, adequate correction and verification mechanisms provided a high rate of assignment of geographic coordinates, the findings suggest that adopting buffers, favored by geocoding, represents a potential for spatial epidemiological analyses by improving the representation of environmental attributes and the understanding of health outcomes.
Collapse