Abstract
In the analysis of spatially referenced public health data, members of different disciplinary groups (geographers, epidemiologists and statisticians) tend to select different methodological approaches, usually those with which they are already familiar. This paper compares three such approaches in terms of their relative value and results. A single public health dataset, derived from a community survey, is analysed by using 'traditional' epidemiological methods, GIS and point pattern analysis. Since they adopt different 'models' for addressing the same research question, the three approaches produce some variation in the results for specific health-related variables. Taken overall, however, the results complement, rather than contradict or duplicate each other.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-12 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Health and Place |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2001 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- Epidemiology
- GIS
- Point pattern analysis
- Public health data
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Analysing spatially referenced public health data: A comparison of three methodological approaches: A comparison of three methodological approaches'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver