Search

Search Results

• 

  Smartphone-assisted spatial data collection improves geographic information quality: pilot study using a birth records dataset

  Xiaohui Xu, Hui Hu, Sandie Ha, Daikwon Han

  23-11-2016

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2016.482

  3027

  PDF: 1147

  HTML: 819

• Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods

  Dustin T. Duncan, Marcia C. Castro, Jeffrey C. Blossom, Gary G. Bennett, Steven L. Gortmaker

  265-273

  01-05-2011

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2011.179

  2998

  PDF: 2067
• 

  An analysis of the process and results of manual geocode correction

  Yolanda J. McDonald, Michael Schwind, Daniel W. Goldberg, Amanda Lampley, Cosette M. Wheeler

  11-05-2017

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2017.526

  2588

  PDF: 1093

  HTML: 990
• 

  Ecological characterization of a cutaneous leishmaniasis outbreak through remotely sensed land cover changes

  Verónica Andreo, Juan Rosa, Karina Ramos, O. Daniel Salomón

  06-05-2022

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2022.1033

  1968

  PDF: 1113

  Appendix: 215

  HTML: 42
• 

  Comparison of GPS imputation methods in environmental health research

  Sungsoon Hwang, Kashica Webber-Ritchey, Elizabeth Moxley

  29-08-2022

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2022.1081

  2462

  PDF: 1198

  HTML: 42
• 

  Assessing spatial inequalities in accessing community pharmacies: a mixed geographically weighted approach

  Alexander Domnich, Lucia Arata, Daniela Amicizia, Alessio Signori, Roberto Gasparini, Donatella Panatto

  16-11-2016

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2016.457

  3623

  PDF: 1944

  HTML: 1338

• Response to Geocoding-protected health information using online services may compromise patient privacy - Comments on Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods by Duncan et al.

  Dustin T. Duncan, Marcia C. Castro, Jeffrey C. Blossom

  158-159

  01-05-2012

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2012.133

  1128

  PDF: 947

• Geocoding-protected health information using online services may compromise patient privacy - Comments on Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods by Duncan et al.

  Sunny Mak

  157

  01-05-2012

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2012.132

  1398

  PDF: 1079
• 

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

  Courtney J. Walker, Steven R. Browning, Jeffrey E. Levy, W. Jay Christian

  06-05-2022

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2022.1020

  1627

  PDF: 854

  HTML: 19
• 

  Comparison of single- and multi-scale models for the prediction of the Culicoides biting midge distribution in Germany

  Renke Lühken, Jörn Martin Gethmann, Petra Kranz, Pia Steffenhagen, Christoph Staubach, Franz J. Conraths, Ellen Kiel

  31-05-2016

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2016.405

  3536

  PDF: 1171

  HTML: 1468
• 

  Understanding needs and barriers to using geospatial tools for public health policymaking in China

  Dohyeong Kim, Yingyuan Zhang, Chang Kil Lee

  07-05-2018

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2018.594

  2105

  PDF: 1056

  HTML: 379
• 

  Perceived spatial stigma, body mass index and blood pressure: a global positioning system study among low-income housing residents in New York City

  Dustin T. Duncan, Ryan R. Ruff, Basile Chaix, Seann D. Regan, James H. Williams, Joseph Ravenell, Marie A. Bragg, Gbenga Ogedegbe, Brian Elbel

  31-05-2016

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2016.399

  4330

  PDF: 2064

  HTML: 1510
• 

  A topological multilayer model of the human body

  Antonio Barbeito, Marco Painho, Pedro Cabral, João O'Neill

  04-11-2015

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2015.375

  3353

  PDF: 1339

  HTML: 1593
• 

  Integration of accelerometers, global positioning systems (GPS) and geographical information systems (GIS) for measuring physical activity

  Lucian Bezuidenhout, Warren Miller, Conran Joseph, David Moulaee Conradsson

  21-10-2025

  https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2025.1382

  947

  PDF: 530

  HTML: 36