Geocoding precision of birth records from 2008 to 2017 in Kentucky, USA

Submitted: 18 May 2021
Accepted: 14 October 2021
Published: 6 May 2022
Abstract Views: 1028
PDF: 387
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Maternal address information captured on birth records is increasingly used to estimate residential environmental exposures during pregnancy. However, there has been limited assessment of the geocoding precision of birth records, particularly since the adoption of the 2003 standard birth certificate in 2015. To address this gap, this study evaluated the geocoding precision of live and stillbirth records of Kentucky residents over ten years, from 2008 through 2017. This study summarized the demographic characteristics of imprecisely geocoded records and, using a bivariate logistic regression, identified covariates associated with poor geocoding precision among three population density designations-metro, non-metro, and rural. We found that in metro areas, after adjusting for area deprivation, education, and the race, age and education of both parents, records for Black mothers had 48% lower odds of imprecise geocoding (aOR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.56), while Black women in rural areas had 96% higher odds of imprecise geocoding (aOr=1.96, 95% CI: 1.68, 2.28). This study also found that over the study period, rural and non-metro areas began with a high proportion of imprecisely geocoded records (38% in rural areas, 19% in non-metro), but both experienced an 8% decline in imprecisely geocoded records over the study period (aOr=0.92, 95% CI: 0.92, 0.94). This study shows that, while geocoding precision has improved in Kentucky, further work is needed to improve geocoding in rural areas and address racial and ethnic disparities.



PlumX Metrics


Download data is not yet available.


Andresen MA, Malleson N, Steenbeek W, Townsley M, Vandeviver C, 2020. Minimum geocoding match rates: an international study of the impact of data and areal unit sizes. Int Geo Inf Sci 34:1306-22. DOI:
Ash M, Fetter TR, 2004. Who lives on the wrong side of the environmental tracks? Evidence from the Epa’s risk-screening environmental indicators model*. Soc Sci Q 85:441-62. DOI:
Buttling LG, Mcknight MX, Kolivras KN, Ranganathan S, Gohlke JM, 2021. Maternal proximity to Central Appalachia Surface Mining and Birth Outcomes. Environ Epidemiol 5:e128. DOI:
Cromley EK, 2019. Using Gis to address epidemiologic research questions. Curr Epidemiol Rep 6:162-73. DOI:
Gilboa SM, Mendola P, Olshan AF, Harness C, Loomis D, Langlois PH, Savitz DA, Herring AH, 2006. Comparison of residential geocoding methods in population-based study of air quality and birth defects. Environ Res 101:256-62. DOI:
Goldberg D, Swift JN, Wilson JP, 2008. Geocoding best practices: reference data, input data, and feature matching. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory, Techincal Report No. 9, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ha S, Hu H, Mao L, Roussos-Ross D, Roth J, Xu X, 2016. Potential selection bias associated with using geocoded birth records for epidemiologic research. Ann Epidemiol 26:204-11. DOI:
Health UOWSOMP, 2021. 2015 Area Deprivation Index V2.0. Inc.
Jacquez GM, 2012. A research agenda: Does geocoding positional error matter in health Gis studies? Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol 3:7-16. DOI:
Jones RR, Dellavalle CT, Flory AR, Nordan A, Hoppin JA, Hofmann JN, Chen H, Giglierano J, Lynch CF, Beane Freeman LE, Rushton G, Ward MH, 2014. Accuracy of residential geocoding in the agricultural health study. Int J Health Geogr 13:37. DOI:
Kind AJH, Buckingham WR, 2018. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible - the neighborhood atlas. N Engl J Med 378:2456-58. DOI:
Kotelchuck M, 1994. The adequacy of prenatal care utilization index: its us distribution and association with low birthweight. Am J Public Health 84:1486-89. DOI:
Krieger N, Waterman P, Chen JT, Soobader M-J, Subramanian SV, Carson R, 2002. Zip Code Caveat: Bias Due to Spatiotemporal Mismatches between Zip Codes and Us Census-Defined Geographic Areas--the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Public Health 92:1100-02. DOI:
Krieger N, Waterman P, Lemieux K, Zierler S, Hogan JW, 2001. On the wrong side of the tracts? Evaluating the accuracy of geocoding in public health research. Am J Public Health 91:1114-16. DOI:
Mask D, 2014. Where the streets have no name. Atlantic.
Oliver MN, Matthews KA, Siadaty M, Hauck FR, Pickle LW, 2005. Geographic bias related to geocoding in epidemiologic studies. Int J Health Geogr 4:29. DOI:
Schinasi LH, Auchincloss AH, Forrest CB, Diez Roux AV, 2018. Using electronic health record data for environmental and place based population health research: a systematic review. Ann Epidemiol 28:493-502. DOI:
The New York Times 1996. Kentucky faces tradition of offensive road names. The New York Times Company, p 13.
Zandbergen PA, 2007. Influence of geocoding quality on environmental exposure assessment of children living near high traffic roads. BMC Public Health 7:37. DOI:

How to Cite

Walker, C. J., Browning, S. R., Levy, J. E., & Christian, W. J. . (2022). Geocoding precision of birth records from 2008 to 2017 in Kentucky, USA. Geospatial Health, 17(1).

List of Cited By :

Crossref logo