From Selena.Boddington@health.wa.gov.au Thu May 25 22:05:27 2000
Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id WAA61130
	for <waphgis@lists.u.washington.edu>; Thu, 25 May 2000 22:05:26 -0700
Received: from nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au (nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au [165.118.97.16])
	by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with SMTP id WAA29700
	for <waphgis@u.washington.edu>; Thu, 25 May 2000 22:05:23 -0700
Received: from 165.118.97.16 by nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 26 May 2000 13:03:28 +0800
Received: by nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)
	id <LTW69SMG>; Fri, 26 May 2000 13:03:28 +0800
Message-ID: <B7A57A035501D311A4DE00902733A336018CA6EB@NT027MESEP>
From: "Boddington, Selena" <Selena.Boddington@health.wa.gov.au>
To: "'waphgis@u.washington.edu'" <waphgis@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: Issue of Confidentiality in Small Area GIS mapping
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:03:27 +0800
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)

Yes, I agree about potential denominator problems, but isn't the use of a
proportional chart assuming the base population for the various regions is
the same?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rarig, Alice [mailto:Alice_Rarig@health.state.ak.us]
Sent: Friday, 26 May 2000 4:22
To: 'waphgis@u.washington.edu'
Subject: RE: Issue of Confidentiality in Small Area GIS mapping


Have to keep in mind the denominator problems with rates -- you may very
well not have acceptable denominator data even with new census data until
and unless completeness of count looks good. I like the use in mapping of a
shape (circle or something) with size proportionate to count for the tract
or county - in fact I use pie charts of proportional size, and show
something about distribution with the pie charts. 

-----Original Message-----
From: rweinstein@doh.state.nj.us [mailto:rweinstein@doh.state.nj.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 5:32 AM
To: waphgis@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Issue of Confidentiality in Small Area GIS mapping



You could try mapping RATES rather than cases , by zipcode, or tract or
other subcounty geo-unit.


Rachel Weinstein
Cancer Epidemiology Services/Surveillance
NJ Dept. of Health and Senior Services
P.O. Box 369
Trenton, NJ  08625-0369
(609) 588-3500   Phone
(609) 588-3638   Fax


 

                    tchay

                    <tchay@gwis2.circ.gw        To:
"waphgis@u.washington.edu" <waphgis@u.washington.edu>             
                    u.edu>                      cc:

                    Sent by:                    Subject:     Issue of
Confidentiality in Small Area GIS mapping           
                    WAPHGIS-owner@u.wash

                    ington.edu

 

 

                    05/24/2000 05:36 PM

                    Please respond to

                    waphgis

 

 





Dear Colleagues,
My name is Tatia Chay and I am an MPH-Epidemiology candidate at the George
Washington University School of Public Health. I am currently working to
map
breast cancer incidence and mortality using GIS for DC and have run into
some
obstacles due to the sensitive nature of certain addresses in the District.
Does anyone have any suggestions for circumventing this issue.
Thank you,
Tatia

Tatia Chay
MPH-Candidate
School of Public Health and Health Services
George Washington University



.