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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
