Comparing Alternative Methods of Measuring Geographic Access to Health Services
- 998 Downloads
Objective: This research compared alternative measures of geographic access to health care providers using different levels of spatial aggregation (county, zipcode and street) and different methods of calculating the cost of space (Euclidean distance, road distance and travel time).
Data Sources: The research is based on a community-based sample of rural (74%) and urban (26%) Arkansans (n=435) and all medical providers (n=3,419) and mental health specialists (n=1,034) practicing in the state of Arkansas in 1993.
Study Design: A cross-sectional study design was used to determine the availability of and accessibility to general medical and specialty mental health providers. Accessibility was defined as the travel time between each subject and the closest provider. Availability was defined as the number of providers within 30 minutes travel time of each subject.
Data Collection: A Geographic Information System was used to geocode subjects and providers at the county, zip code and street levels, and to calculate the travel times, road distances and Euclidean distances between subjects and providers.
Principal Findings: Regression results demonstrated that the most commonly used county-based measures of geographic access (e.g., MSA designation and providers per capita) explained 3%–10% of the variation in accessibility and 34%–70% of the variation in availability.
Conclusions: Results indicate that Geographic Information Systems can be used to accurately measure geographic access to health services in a cost effective manner.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- D. Albert and W. Gesler. “Multiple Locations of Practice in North Carolina: Findings and Health Care Policy Implications”, Carolina Health Services and Policy Review, vol. 4, pp. 55-75, 1997.Google Scholar
- L. Anselin. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1988.Google Scholar
- J. Brimberg and R. Love. “A New Distance Function for Modeling Travel Distances in a Transportation Network”, Transportation Science. Vol. 26,No. 2, pp. 129-137, 1992.Google Scholar
- J. Fortney, M. Zhang, J. Warren and K. Rost. “The Impact of Geographic Accessibility on the Intensity and Quality of Depression Treatment”, Medical Care, Vol. 27,no. 9, pp. 884-893, 1999.Google Scholar
- A. Geronimus, J. Bounnd and L. Neidert. “On the Validity of Using Census Geocode Characteristics to Proxy Individual Socioeconomic Characteristics”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 91,no. 434, pp. 529-537, 1996.Google Scholar
- D. Goodman, E. Fischer, T. Stukel and C. Chang. “The Distance to Community Medical Care and the Likelihood of Hospitalization: Is Closer Always Better?” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87,no. 7, pp. 1144-1150, 1997.Google Scholar
- Jacoby Itzhak, “Geographic Distribution of Physician Manpower: The GMENAC Legacy”, Journal of Rural Health, Vol. 7,no. 4. supplemental, pp. 427-436, 1991.Google Scholar
- J. Kleinman and D. Makuc. “Travel for Ambulatory Care”, Medical Care, Vol. 21, pp. 543-557, 1983.Google Scholar
- R. Penchansky and J.W. Thomas, “The Concept of Access: Definition and Relationship to Consumer Satisfaction”, Medical Care, Vol. 19,no. 2, pp. 127-140, 1981.Google Scholar
- C. Phibbs and H. Luft. “Correlation of Travel Time on Roads Versus Straight Line Distance”, Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 52,no. 4, pp. 532-542, 1995.Google Scholar
- T. Ricketts and L. Savitz. Access to Health Services in Geographic Methods for Health Services Research, A Focus on the Rural-Urban Continuum, editors T. Ricketts, L. Savitz, W. Gesler and D. Osborne, University Press of America Inc. Lanham, MD, 1994.Google Scholar
- R. Rost, M. Zhang, J. Fortney, J. Smith and G.R. Smith. “Rural-Urban Differences in Depression Treatment and Suicidality”, Medical Care, Vol. 36,no. 7, pp. 1098-1107, 1998.Google Scholar
- S. Walsh, P. Page and W. Gesler. “Normative Models and Healthcare Planning: Network-Based Simulations Within a Geographic Information System Environment”, Health Services Research, Vol. 32,no. 2, pp. 243-260, 1997.Google Scholar