Quantifying the Error Associated with Alternative GIS-based Techniques to Measure Access to Health Care Services

Abstract

The aim of this study was to quantify the error associated with different accessibility methods commonly used by public health researchers. Network distances were calculated from each household to the nearest GP our study area in the UK. Household level network distances were assigned as the gold standard and compared to alternate widely used accessibility methods. Four spatial aggregation units, two centroid types and two distance calculation methods represent commonly used accessibility calculation methods. Spearman's rank coefficients were calculated to show the extent which distance measurements were correlated with the gold standard. We assessed the proportion of households that were incorrectly assigned to GP for each method. The distance method, level of spatial aggregation and centroid type were compared between urban and rural regions. Urban distances were less varied from the gold standard, with smaller errors, compared to rural regions. For urban regions, Euclidean distances are significantly related to network distances. Network distances assigned a larger proportion of households to the correct GP compared to Euclidean distances, for both urban and rural morphologies. Our results, stratified by urban and rural populations, explain why contradicting results have been reported in the literature. The results we present are intended to be used aide-memoire by public health researchers using geographical aggregated data in accessibility research.

Geographic accessibility to primary healthcare centers in Mozambique

“…In public health there is a direct link between the distance patients travel to access health and the reduction of ill health and suffering in a country [ 3 ]. Patients tend to use health facilities more if they are located close to them than if they are far way [ 4 ]. The issue of distance of the patients to the centers is seen as one of the main determinants of use of health services [ 5 ].…”

“…Currently, several advanced methodological approaches are used to estimate health accessibility, such as gravity, kernel density, and catchment area models [ 9 ]. However, the conventional and most common techniques used to calculate accessibility in public health research are still the Euclidean and network distance [ 4 ]. Euclidean distance techniques describe a location’s relationship to a source or a set of sources based on the straight-line distance [ 10 ].…”

A best practice framework to measure spatial variation in alcohol availability

“…The fundamental theoretical and methodological differences, which underpin the nonnetwork and non-spatial methods are significant and their effects have been clearly demonstrated in other work. Research has shown that omission of network routes can result in falsely assigning places as accessible (Apparicio and Seguin 2006;Higgs et al, 2012;Mizen et al, 2015). The topography of an area, and the barriers to access contained within, whether built (e.g.…”

Assessment the Relationship of Maternal Child Health Accessibility, Infant Mortality and Fertility in Sagar district, Madhya Pradesh

“…The geographic location and allocation of health centers along the terrain pattern (Morphmetry), road connectivity with inhabitant and conditions and accessibility throughout the year are the key component in the utilization of maternal health care services (Fatih & EGRESI, 2013;Akhtar &Izhar, 2010 andGage &Calixthe, 2006). Patients tend to use health facilities more if they are located closer to them than they are far away (Mizen, 2015). Low availability and accessibility of health centers and lack of road connectivity has stimulated the chance of home delivery which consequence increases of infant death.…”