| OCR Text |
Show 98 Kaila McDonald college of social & behavioral science Researchers utilizing geocoded data should be concerned about positional error, match rates and false positive matches. Systematic geocoding error can lead to false associations between outcome and expo-sure, and low match rates can reduce statistical power for detecting associations. In recent years research-ers have paid especially close attention to geocoding quality resulting in numerous publications and best practices to improve geocoding. The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) for example, published a geocoding best practices guide which provides cancer registries detailed information on assessing the geocoding process, quality of geocodes and defining the metadata that are associated with the output. In response to these geocoding ‘best practices' and publications about the importance of high quality geocoded data, cancer registries are beginning to assess the quality of their geocoded data, review current geocoding practices and develop procedures that will sustain high quality locational data and subsequent research resulting from the data into the future. I am assisting the Utah Cancer Registry (UCR) in evaluating the reliability and accuracy of several geocoding methods currently being used and helping to develop best practices to ensure high quality geocoding of cancer cases in Utah. The UCR is the state-designated repository for cancer surveillance data and receives funding from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program to geocode all cancer cases in the state of Utah. ASSESSING THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETE-NESS OF LOCATIONAL DATA FOR CANCER CASES: A STUDY OF UTAH CANCER REGISTRY CURRENT AND FUTURE GEOCODING METHODS Kaila McDonald (Kevin Henry) (Antoinette Stroup, Director, Utah Cancer Registry) Department of Geography University of Utah UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS Kevin Henry Antoinette Stroup |
