1. State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries
NAACCR GIS Committee
Recinda L Sherman, MPH, CTR
NAACCR Annual Meeting,
Detroit, Michigan
June 7, 2007

2. State of GIS Activities Among NAACCR Member Registries
Two surveys were conducted
1999 by NPCR
Ric Skinner, formerly with NJ Cancer Registry
2005 by NAACCR
NAACCR GIS Committee

3. Rationale/Benefits 1999 Rationale for survey
Desire to support local cancer control activities at geographic levels lower than county
To provide tools to improve understanding of effects of cancer on populations within state
To support small area analysis
Increase data quality
QA/QC of address data and for geocoding
Reported Benefits
Forces QA/QC of demographic data when geocoding
New ways of presenting data
Decreases response time to data requests
Supports cancer prevention and control activities
Enables additional research
Time & distance studies for services
Cluster investigation
Hypothesis generation
Merge with environmental and sociodemographic factors

4. Extent of Activities (1999 & 2005)
1999 Survey
44% currently geocoding
40% currently using GIS
68 Registries Contacted
44 responded (65%)
2005 Survey
82% currently geocoding
62% currently using GIS
72 Registries Contacted
47 Responded (65%)

5. Geocoding Data Quality (1999 & 2005)
2005 Survey
83% of those geocoding clean addresses
Variety of methods of data cleaning
None, parsing, USPS standardization
Variety of methods used for geocoding
No interactive, multiple street reference files, level of geocoding (zip code, street, city), hand geocoding
Variety of software and underlying street reference files used
1999 Survey
70% of those geocoding clean addresses
Correct misspellings, correct ‘no matches’ after batch match, correct for NAACCR edits, in-house standards, addresses standardization
Use phone books, paper maps, Zip code directories

6. Geocoding Results 2005
On average, the number of geocodes attempted each year is 1.7 times the annual case load
On average, 16% of attempted geocodes failed the batch match
On average, 7% of attempted geocodes were ungeocodable

7. GIS Implementation Obstacles (1999 & 2005)
Data quality
Institutional support
IT issues
Qualified personnel
Training

8. Summation 1999 to 2005
Considerable growth in geocoding/GIS activities since 1999
Current needs have also grown
Standardization/best practices
Each registry is a “renegade”
Training
Software, basic GIS concepts/techniques
Applicability of data use
Interpretability of data results
Spatial Analysis methodology
Institutional support
Institutional investment

9. Training Priorities 2005 Ranked priorities for training:
1. Geocoding methodological issues
2. GIS applications in cancer control
3. Basic mapping methodological issues
4. Spatial analysis
5. Web-based GIS applications
6. Data/map resources
90% would benefit from on-line training

10. Future Priorities 2005 1. Geocoding, address cleaning, standardization
Ranked priorities for future GIS activities:
1. Geocoding, address cleaning, standardization
2. Cartography
3. Spatial statistical analysis
4. Application for GIS in healthcare cancer control
5. Internet mapping applications

11. Key Point #1 Efforts needed to improve/standardize geocoding
A variety of methods is used to prepare and process data for geocoding.
A variety of software and reference files is used for geocoding and GIS.    
This indicates a need for standardization of methods across registries to ensure comparable data (demonstrated need for Geocoding Guidelines).

12. Key Point #2 Lack of institutional support
Of the registries currently geocoding and using GIS
63% have staff with geocoding or GIS in their job descriptions
Of these with GIS or geocoding in job descriptions, the average percent of time allocated is 28%
58% feel the level of support for GIS activities is not sufficient
This is for current activity level only
This may indicate lack of institutional support.

13. Key Point #3 Training needs are immediate and long-term
The majority of registries have the data available in geocoded form but not all these registries are currently using the data in a GIS.
The majority of registries not currently using GIS have implementation plans.
This likely indicates evolving training needs.

14. Geographical Information Systems
“a system of hardware, software, data, people, organizations and institutional arrangements for collecting, storing, analyzing and disseminating information about areas of the earth”
Dueker and Kjerne, 1989

15. Acknowledgements
Results from the 1999 GIS survey were provided by Ric Skinner, Baystate Health (previously with the NJ State Cancer Registry)
NAACCR GIS Committee