Geographical accessibility to healthcare by point-of-interest data from online maps: a comparative study.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Heng-Qian Huang-Fu, Nan Zhang, Li Wang, Hui-Juan Liang, Ben-Song Xian, Xiao-Fang Gan, Yingsi Lai
{"title":"Geographical accessibility to healthcare by point-of-interest data from online maps: a comparative study.","authors":"Heng-Qian Huang-Fu, Nan Zhang, Li Wang, Hui-Juan Liang, Ben-Song Xian, Xiao-Fang Gan, Yingsi Lai","doi":"10.4081/gh.2024.1322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Geographical accessibility is important for promoting health equity, and calculating it requires the locations of all existing healthcare facilities in a region. Authoritative location data collected by governments is accurate but mostly not publicly available, while point-of-interest (POI) data from online sources, such as Baidu Maps and AutoNavi Maps are easily accessible. However, the accuracy of the latter has not been thoroughly analyzed. Taking Baotou, a medium-sized city in China, as aneample, we assessed the suitability of using POI data for measuring geographic accessibility to healthcare facilities.We computedthe difference of geographic accessibility calculated based on POI data and that on authoritative data.Logistic regression and a multiple linear regression model was applied to identify factors related to the consistency between the two data sources. Compared to authoritative data, POI data exhibited discrepancies, with completeness of 54.9% and accuracy of 63.7%. Geographic accessibility calculated based on both data showed similar patterns, with good consistency for hospitals and in urban areas. However, large differences (>30 minutes) were shown in rural areas for primary healthcare facilities. The differences were small regarding to population- weighted average accessibility (with slight underestimation of 3.07 minutes) and population coverage across various levels of accessibility (with differences less than 1% of the population) for the entire area. In conclusion, POI data can be considered foruse in both urban areas and at the level of entire city; however, awareness should be raised in rural areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":56260,"journal":{"name":"Geospatial Health","volume":"19 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geospatial Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2024.1322","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Geographical accessibility is important for promoting health equity, and calculating it requires the locations of all existing healthcare facilities in a region. Authoritative location data collected by governments is accurate but mostly not publicly available, while point-of-interest (POI) data from online sources, such as Baidu Maps and AutoNavi Maps are easily accessible. However, the accuracy of the latter has not been thoroughly analyzed. Taking Baotou, a medium-sized city in China, as aneample, we assessed the suitability of using POI data for measuring geographic accessibility to healthcare facilities.We computedthe difference of geographic accessibility calculated based on POI data and that on authoritative data.Logistic regression and a multiple linear regression model was applied to identify factors related to the consistency between the two data sources. Compared to authoritative data, POI data exhibited discrepancies, with completeness of 54.9% and accuracy of 63.7%. Geographic accessibility calculated based on both data showed similar patterns, with good consistency for hospitals and in urban areas. However, large differences (>30 minutes) were shown in rural areas for primary healthcare facilities. The differences were small regarding to population- weighted average accessibility (with slight underestimation of 3.07 minutes) and population coverage across various levels of accessibility (with differences less than 1% of the population) for the entire area. In conclusion, POI data can be considered foruse in both urban areas and at the level of entire city; however, awareness should be raised in rural areas.

通过在线地图上的兴趣点数据获得医疗保健的地理可及性:一项比较研究。
地理可及性对于促进卫生公平很重要,计算地理可及性需要一个区域内所有现有卫生保健设施的位置。政府收集的权威位置数据是准确的,但大多不公开,而来自百度地图和高德地图等在线资源的兴趣点(POI)数据很容易获得。然而,后者的准确性尚未得到彻底的分析。以中国中型城市包头市为例,评估了POI数据用于衡量医疗机构地理可达性的适用性。计算了基于POI数据计算的地理可达性与权威数据计算的地理可达性差异。采用Logistic回归和多元线性回归模型识别影响两个数据源一致性的因素。与权威数据相比,POI数据存在差异,完整性为54.9%,准确性为63.7%。基于这两个数据计算的地理可达性显示出相似的模式,医院和城市地区具有良好的一致性。然而,在农村地区,初级卫生保健设施的使用时间差异很大(60 - 30分钟)。在人口加权平均可达性(略低于3.07分钟)和人口覆盖率(差异小于人口的1%)方面,整个地区的差异很小。总而言之,POI数据可以考虑在城市地区和整个城市一级使用;然而,应该提高农村地区的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geospatial Health
Geospatial Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The focus of the journal is on all aspects of the application of geographical information systems, remote sensing, global positioning systems, spatial statistics and other geospatial tools in human and veterinary health. The journal publishes two issues per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信