Geographic Information System Applications in Public Health

2016 ◽  
pp. 137-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandul Yasobant ◽  
Kranti Suresh Vora ◽  
Ashish Upadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Geographic Information ◽  
Geostatistical Analysis ◽  
Gis Techniques ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Optimal Health

Geographic information systems or geographic information science is a combination of computer-mapping capabilities with additional database management/data analysis tools. GIS is widely used in various sectors such as environmental science, urban planning, agricultural applications etc. Public health is another focus area, where GIS has been used for research and practice areas such as epidemic surveillance and monitoring, among others. The journey of use of GIS in public health spans more than a century and GIS application in public health has evolved from the simple maps to the higher level geostatistical analysis and interactive WebGIS in recent times. GIS is an analytical tool which differs from conventional computer-assisted mapping and any statistical analysis programs in its ability to analyze complex data and visual presentation of spatial data. Specialized GIS techniques such as network analysis, location-allocation models, site selection, transportation models, and geostatistical analysis are well established and used in many developed and developing nations. Unfortunately owing to the high cost of licensed software and specialized skills for advanced data analysis, use of these techniques is limited mainly for the research and by few experts. GIS is proved to be useful for various public health practices and research purposes including epidemiological surveys/investigation, implementation research, program/policy decision making and dissemination of information. The advantage of using GIS is that maps provide an added dimension to data analysis, which helps in visualizing the complex patterns and relationships of public health issues, thus many unanswered questions in public health, can be understood well through use of GIS techniques. Use of GIS in public health is an application area still in its infancy. Wider use of GIS for public health practice such as program planning, implementation and monitoring in addition to building evidence base for the policy making will help reduce inequities in health and provide universal healthcare. Overall, GIS is a helpful and efficient tool especially for public health professionals working in low resource settings. In the future with inclusion of advanced GIS technology like WebGIS can help reach the goal of optimal health care services globally.

Geographic Information System Applications in Public Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 538-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandul Yasobant ◽  
Kranti Suresh Vora ◽  
Ashish Upadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Geographic Information ◽  
Geostatistical Analysis ◽  
Gis Techniques ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Optimal Health

Geographic information systems or geographic information science is a combination of computer-mapping capabilities with additional database management/data analysis tools. GIS is widely used in various sectors such as environmental science, urban planning, agricultural applications etc. Public health is another focus area, where GIS has been used for research and practice areas such as epidemic surveillance and monitoring, among others. The journey of use of GIS in public health spans more than a century and GIS application in public health has evolved from the simple maps to the higher level geostatistical analysis and interactive WebGIS in recent times. GIS is an analytical tool which differs from conventional computer-assisted mapping and any statistical analysis programs in its ability to analyze complex data and visual presentation of spatial data. Specialized GIS techniques such as network analysis, location-allocation models, site selection, transportation models, and geostatistical analysis are well established and used in many developed and developing nations. Unfortunately owing to the high cost of licensed software and specialized skills for advanced data analysis, use of these techniques is limited mainly for the research and by few experts. GIS is proved to be useful for various public health practices and research purposes including epidemiological surveys/investigation, implementation research, program/policy decision making and dissemination of information. The advantage of using GIS is that maps provide an added dimension to data analysis, which helps in visualizing the complex patterns and relationships of public health issues, thus many unanswered questions in public health, can be understood well through use of GIS techniques. Use of GIS in public health is an application area still in its infancy. Wider use of GIS for public health practice such as program planning, implementation and monitoring in addition to building evidence base for the policy making will help reduce inequities in health and provide universal healthcare. Overall, GIS is a helpful and efficient tool especially for public health professionals working in low resource settings. In the future with inclusion of advanced GIS technology like WebGIS can help reach the goal of optimal health care services globally.

scholarly journals What makes a ‘successful’ collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van der Graaf ◽  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Eleanor Holding ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Evaluation Scheme ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.

scholarly journals Health facility capacity to provide postabortion care in Afghanistan: a cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzana Maruf ◽  
Hannah Tappis ◽  
Enriquito Lu ◽  
Ghutai Sadeq Yaqubi ◽  
Jelle Stekelenburg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Family Planning ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Public Health Facilities ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Vacuum Aspiration ◽  
Postabortion Care ◽  
Products Of Conception ◽  
Family Planning Counseling

Abstract Background Afghanistan has one of the highest burdens of maternal mortality in the world, estimated at 638 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2017. Infections, obstetric hemorrhage, and unsafe abortion are the three leading causes of maternal death. Contraceptive prevalence rate has fluctuated between 10 and 20% since 2006. The 2016 Afghanistan National Maternal and Newborn Health Quality of Care Assessment evaluated facility readiness to provide quality routine and emergency obstetric and newborn care, including postabortion care services. Methods Accessible public health facilities with at least five births per day (n = 77), a nationally representative sample of public health facilities with fewer than five births per day (n = 149), and 20 purposively selected private health facilities were assessed. Assessment components examining postabortion care included a facility inventory and record review tool to verify drug, supply, equipment, and facility record availability, and an interview tool to collect information on skilled birth attendants’ knowledge and perceptions. Results Most facilities had supplies, equipment, and drugs to manage postabortion care, including family planning counseling and services provision. At public facilities, 36% of skilled birth attendants asked to name essential actions to address abortion complications mentioned manual vacuum aspiration (23% at private facilities); fewer than one-quarter mentioned counseling. When asked what information should be given to postabortion clients, 73% described family planning counseling need (70% at private facilities). Nearly all high-volume public health facilities with an average of five or more births per day and less than 5% of low volume public health facilities with an average of 0–4 deliveries per day reported removal of retained products of conception in the past 3 months. Among the 77 high volume facilities assessed, 58 (75%) reported using misoprostol for removal of retained products of conception, 59 (77%) reported using manual vacuum aspiration, and 67 (87%) reported using dilation and curettage. Conclusions This study provides evidence that there is room for improvement in postabortion care services provision in Afghanistan health facilities including post abortion family planning. Access to high-quality postabortion care needs additional investments to improve providers’ knowledge and practice, availability of supplies and equipment.

scholarly journals Patterns and correlates of mis-implementation in state chronic disease public health practice in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. Padek ◽  
Stephanie Mazzucca ◽  
Peg Allen ◽  
Emily Rodriguez Weno ◽  
Edward Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Effective Programs

Abstract Background Much of the disease burden in the United States is preventable through application of existing knowledge. State-level public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to chronic disease, but the extent to which mis-implementation occurring with these programs is largely unknown. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones. Methods A 2018 comprehensive survey assessing the extent of mis-implementation and multi-level influences on mis-implementation was reported by state health departments (SHDs). Questions were developed from previous literature. Surveys were emailed to randomly selected SHD employees across the Unites States. Spearman’s correlation and multinomial logistic regression were used to assess factors in mis-implementation. Results Half (50.7%) of respondents were chronic disease program managers or unit directors. Forty nine percent reported that programs their SHD oversees sometimes, often or always continued ineffective programs. Over 50% also reported that their SHD sometimes or often ended effective programs. The data suggest the strongest correlates and predictors of mis-implementation were at the organizational level. For example, the number of organizational layers impeded decision-making was significant for both continuing ineffective programs (OR=4.70; 95% CI=2.20, 10.04) and ending effective programs (OR=3.23; 95% CI=1.61, 7.40). Conclusion The data suggest that changing certain agency practices may help in minimizing the occurrence of mis-implementation. Further research should focus on adding context to these issues and helping agencies engage in appropriate decision-making. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to greater use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, ultimately to improve health outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document