Skip to main content

Table 4 Descriptions and examples of entity spatiotemporal relationship enabling attribute association (ESTREAA) hierarchy categories

From: Use of attribute association error probability estimates to evaluate quality of medical record geocodes

ESTREAA hierarchy category Description/example #(%) of cases in case study sample
1 No AAEP detected (AAEP = 0), or AAEP is null, in all associations 12,791 (95.69 %)
2 AAEP detected in association 4, but contained spatially to enumeration area of interest. An example is a case with a missing house number, on a street wholly contained within the enumeration area of interest 27 (0.20 %)
3 For these cases associations 1–4 are free of AAEP, but association 5 is not. Examples include cases where a county boundary intersects a parcel (found in eastern seaboard states of US), or for which there is disagreement about what enumeration area a parcel belongs to, between local and national government agencies, for example, between US counties and the US Census Bureau, regarding the correct county 0
4 AAEP in association 4 causes AAEP in association 5. An example is a case whose address matches to postal code only. The postal code area overlaps with the enumeration area but is not coincident with it 185 (1.38 %)
5 AAEP in association 3 propagates into associations 4 and 5. An example is a case with a ‘Multimatch’ Address: patient address contains error in more than one address component and matches to more than one candidate based on which component is edited. Another example: patient owns more than one residence and primary residence cannot be determined 74 (0.57 %)
6 AAEP in association 3 propagates into association 4, but uncertainty is contained spatially in one enumeration area of interest so association 5 remains free of AAEP 0
7 AAEP in patient date of diagnosis (association 2) does not impact the choice of address at diagnosis (association 3). Examples include cases for which date of diagnosis is unknown (death certificate only cases) but patient has never changed residence in his/her lifetime. Another example is a clinically diagnosed case for which year of diagnosis is known and month and day is uncertain, but does not affect the choice of patient address at diagnosis 13 (0.097 %)
8 Patient date of diagnosis (association 2) is uncertain, but this does not affect association 3. Association 4 has AAEP based on record linkage, but, similar to category 2, it does not propagate into association 5 0
9 Patient date of diagnosis (association 2) is uncertain, and this affects the choice of address at diagnosis (association 3), which affects the confidence in the geocode, which affects the confidence in the enumeration area. Examples include death certificate only cases where date of diagnosis is unknown 276 (2.06 %)
10 Cases where patient is positively identified, but all other associations have AAEP except association 5. An example is a patient whose date of diagnosis is uncertain, which propagates AAEP into associations 3 and 4, however the uncertainty is contained spatially to enumeration area of interest, and so association 5 is free of AAEP 0
11 Cases where patient is not positively identified (association 1), and AAEP from that association propagates into all other associations 0