Enhancing Health Care Accessibility and Equity Through a Geoprocessing Toolbox for Spatial Accessibility Analysis: Development and Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to health care services is a critical determinant of population health and well-being. Measuring spatial accessibility to health services is essential for understanding health care distribution and addressing potential inequities. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we developed a geoprocessing toolbox including Python script tools for the ArcGIS Pro environment to measure the spatial accessibility of health services using both classic and enhanced versions of the 2-step floating catchment area method. METHODS: Each of our tools incorporated both distance buffers and travel time catchments to calculate accessibility scores based on users' choices. Additionally, we developed a separate tool to create travel time catchments that is compatible with both locally available network data sets and ArcGIS Online data sources. We conducted a case study focusing on the accessibility of hemodialysis services in the state of Tennessee using the 4 versions of the accessibility tools. Notably, the calculation of the target population considered age as a significant nonspatial factor influencing hemodialysis service accessibility. Weighted populations were calculated using end-stage renal disease incidence rates in different age groups. RESULTS: The implemented tools are made accessible through ArcGIS Online for free use by the research community. The case study revealed disparities in the accessibility of hemodialysis services, with urban areas demonstrating higher scores compared to rural and suburban regions. CONCLUSIONS: These geoprocessing tools can serve as valuable decision-support resources for health care providers, organizations, and policy makers to improve equitable access to health care services. This comprehensive approach to measuring spatial accessibility can empower health care stakeholders to address health care distribution challenges effectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".