Untitled

Curtis, Andrew; Mills, John; Leitner, Michael

doi:10.1186/1476-072x-5-44

Cited by 88 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, geocoded patient addresses are considered confidential and protected in the United States by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Even on low-resolution maps displaying health-related patient information, it may be possible to identify individual patient addresses (13, 14). Geographic masking refers to the practice of modifying the geographic coordinates of the original data to protect confidentiality (15).…”

Section: Review Of Basic Geocoding Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic information systems and chronic kidney disease: racial disparities, rural residence and forecasting

Rodriguez

Hotchkiss

O’Hare

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamics of health and health care provision in the United States vary substantially across regions, and there is substantial regional heterogeneity in population density, age distribution, disease prevalence, race and ethnicity, poverty and the ability to access care. Geocoding and geographic information systems (GIS) are important tools to link patient or population location to information regarding these characteristics. In this review, we provide an overview of basic GIS concepts and provide examples to illustrate how GIS techniques have been applied to the study of kidney disease, and in particular to understanding the interplay between race, poverty, rural residence and the planning of renal services for this population. The interplay of socioeconomic status and renal disease outcomes remains an important area for investigation and recent publications have explored this relationship utilizing GIS techniques to incorporate measures of socioeconomic status and racial composition of neighborhoods. In addition, there are many potential challenges in providing care to rural patients with chronic kidney disease including long travel times and sparse renal services such as transplant and dialysis centers. Geospatially fluent analytic approaches can also inform system level analyses of health care systems and these approaches can be applied to identify an optimal distribution of dialysis facilities. GIS analysis could help untangle the complex interplay between geography, socioeconomic status, and racial disparities in chronic kidney disease, and could inform policy decisions and resource allocation as the population ages and the prevalence of renal disease increases.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Basic Geocoding Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic information systems and chronic kidney disease: racial disparities, rural residence and forecasting

Rodriguez

Hotchkiss

O’Hare

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, disclosure of the locations of subjects' homes, workplaces, daily activities, or trips may lead to serious negative consequences (Dobson and Fisher 2003;Curtis, Mills, and Leitner 2006a). This is especially true in research on public health or social issues (see Boulos, Curtis, and AbdelMalik 2009 for an overview of locational privacy in biomedical and public health research literature).…”

Section: Confidentiality Issues Associated With Georeferenced Datamentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Reverse geocoding is a reverse engineering process through which the actual address of a point location in the geographic database is identified, leading to the identification of the home, work, or activity address of the subject and possibly the identification of the subject (see, for example, Armstrong and Ruggles 2005;Brownstein, Cassa, and Mandl 2006;Curtis, Mills, and Leitner 2006a). Curtis, Mills, and Leitner (2006a), using a newspaper map of body-recovery locations published in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, tested the potential for this 'reverse engineering'. Even though the map was published without a road network, other features allowed them to georeference the maps, restore the road network, and locate specific houses.…”

Section: Confidentiality Issues Associated With Georeferenced Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Replication of scientific research: addressing geoprivacy, confidentiality, and data sharing challenges in geospatial research

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to replicate, or reproduce, research is fundamental to the scientific process. Research combining a variety of georeferenced data is spreading rapidly across scientific domains and international borders. This suggests a growing potential for the use and integration of new and existing data sets to create new multi-disciplinary scientific collaborations. Yet, the unique characteristics of georeferenced data present special challenges to such collaborations. These data are highly identifiable when presented in maps and other visualizations or when combined with sensor data or other related geospatial data sets. The potential opportunities of collaboration may thus be constrained by the need to protect the locational privacy (geoprivacy) and confidentiality of subjects in research using georeferenced data. This paper reviews the obstacles to and potential methods for sharing georeferenced data in order to support a growing and dynamic geospatial research community and build capacity for data-intensive research across the social and environmental sciences. The development and implementation of a geospatial virtual data enclave methodology is proposed as an innovative and viable solution to share and archive georeferenced data among researchers while protecting the geoprivacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of these data. The ability to share confidential geospatial data among researchers is crucial to ensuring replicability of scientific research, and to enable researchers to verify and build upon the research of others.

show abstract

“…The relative ease of using geographic information system (GIS) software (see Glossary of Key Terms, Figure 1), combined with the availability of individual-level population data (“microdata”) have significantly expanded opportunities for public health researchers to explore relationships of place to health, and to visualize results using maps (Brownstein et al, 2006a; Chang et al, 2009; A. J. Curtis et al, 2006; Lozano-Fuentes et al, 2008; Palmer et al, 2013; Ruggles, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2006, a series of articles brought attention to the widespread publication of maps including unmasked individual-level point data (e.g., points representing the latitude and longitude of an individual’s home), demonstrating the relative ease and troubling accuracy through which these points could be reverse coded to physical addresses (Brownstein et al, 2006a; Brownstein et al, 2006b; A. J. Curtis et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidentiality considerations for use of social-spatial data on the social determinants of health: Sexual and reproductive health case study

Haley

Matthews

Cooper

et al. 2016

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding whether and how the places where people live, work, and play are associated with health behaviors and health is essential to understanding the social determinants of health. However, social-spatial data which link a person and their attributes to a geographic location (e.g., home address) create potential confidentiality risks. Despite the growing body of literature describing approaches to protect individual confidentiality when utilizing social-spatial data, peer-reviewed manuscripts displaying identifiable individual point data or quasi-identifiers (attributes associated with the individual or disease that narrow identification) in maps persist, suggesting that knowledge has not been effectively translated into public health research practices. Using sexual and reproductive health as a case study, we explore the extent to which maps appearing in recent peer-reviewed publications risk participant confidentiality. Our scoping review of sexual and reproductive health literature published and indexed in PubMed between January 1, 2013 and September 1, 2015 identified 45 manuscripts displaying participant data in maps as points or small-population geographic units, spanning 26 journals and representing studies conducted in 20 countries. Notably, 56% (13/23) of publications presenting point data on maps either did not describe approaches used to mask data or masked data inadequately. Furthermore, 18% (4/22) of publications displaying data using small-population geographic units included at least two quasi-identifiers. These findings highlight the need for heightened education for researchers, reviewers, and editorial teams. We aim to provide readers with a primer on key confidentiality considerations when utilizing linked social-spatial data for visualizing results. Given the widespread availability of place-based data and the ease of creating maps, it is critically important to raise awareness on when social-spatial data constitute protected health information, best practices for masking geographic identifiers, and methods of balancing disclosure risk and scientific utility. We conclude with recommendations to support the preservation of confidentiality when disseminating results.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 88 publications

References 22 publications

Geographic information systems and chronic kidney disease: racial disparities, rural residence and forecasting

Geographic information systems and chronic kidney disease: racial disparities, rural residence and forecasting

Replication of scientific research: addressing geoprivacy, confidentiality, and data sharing challenges in geospatial research

Confidentiality considerations for use of social-spatial data on the social determinants of health: Sexual and reproductive health case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About