Accuracy of two geocoding methods for geographic information system-based exposure assessment in epidemiological studies

Environmental Health

Methodology

Elodie Faure¹  Béatrice Fervers²  Aurélie M.N. Danjou²  Laure Dossus³  Françoise Clavel-Chapelon⁴  Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault⁴ 

[1] Cancer and Environnent Department, Centre Léon Bérard, 69373, 28 rue Laennec, 08, Lyon, Cedex, France;Cancer and Environnent Department, Centre Léon Bérard, 69373, 28 rue Laennec, 08, Lyon, Cedex, France;Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, 43 Boulevard du 11 Novembre 1918, 69100, Villeurbanne, France;Inserm, Centre for research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), U1018, Team “Generations for Health”, 94805, Villejuif, France;Paris Sud University, UMRS 1018, 94805, Villejuif, France;Inserm, Centre for research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), U1018, Team “Generations for Health”, 94805, Villejuif, France;Paris Sud University, UMRS 1018, 94805, Villejuif, France;INSERM U1018 – EMT, Institut Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif, Cedex, France;

关键词: Geocoding;    Geographic information system;    GIS;    Epidemiology;    Environmental epidemiology;    Residential history;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12940-017-0217-5

 received in 2016-10-05, accepted in 2017-02-10,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundEnvironmental exposure assessment based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and study participants’ residential proximity to environmental exposure sources relies on the positional accuracy of subjects’ residences to avoid misclassification bias. Our study compared the positional accuracy of two automatic geocoding methods to a manual reference method.MethodsWe geocoded 4,247 address records representing the residential history (1990–2008) of 1,685 women from the French national E3N cohort living in the Rhône-Alpes region. We compared two automatic geocoding methods, a free-online geocoding service (method A) and an in-house geocoder (method B), to a reference layer created by manually relocating addresses from method A (method R). For each automatic geocoding method, positional accuracy levels were compared according to the urban/rural status of addresses and time-periods (1990–2000, 2001–2008), using Chi Square tests. Kappa statistics were performed to assess agreement of positional accuracy of both methods A and B with the reference method, overall, by time-periods and by urban/rural status of addresses.ResultsRespectively 81.4% and 84.4% of addresses were geocoded to the exact address (65.1% and 61.4%) or to the street segment (16.3% and 23.0%) with methods A and B. In the reference layer, geocoding accuracy was higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (74.4% vs. 10.5% addresses geocoded to the address or interpolated address level, p < 0.0001); no difference was observed according to the period of residence. Compared to the reference method, median positional errors were 0.0 m (IQR = 0.0-37.2 m) and 26.5 m (8.0-134.8 m), with positional errors <100 m for 82.5% and 71.3% of addresses, for method A and method B respectively. Positional agreement of method A and method B with method R was ‘substantial’ for both methods, with kappa coefficients of 0.60 and 0.61 for methods A and B, respectively.ConclusionOur study demonstrates the feasibility of geocoding residential addresses in epidemiological studies not initially recorded for environmental exposure assessment, for both recent addresses and residence locations more than 20 years ago. Accuracy of the two automatic geocoding methods was comparable. The in-house method (B) allowed a better control of the geocoding process and was less time consuming.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2017