The use of geographic information systems (GIS) in studying mental health service delivery: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographic information systems (GIS) are computer-based spatial mapping tools widely used in public health to examine service availability and access disparities and healthcare utilization. While GIS has supported evidence-based health planning in various domains, its application in mental healthcare service delivery remains underexplored. Our scoping review aimed to address this gap by exploring the scope and type of GIS usage in studying three dimensions of mental health (MH) service delivery (availability, accessibility and utilization), across all geographical locations, settings and populations. We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included peer-reviewed English-language studies using GIS to examine service delivery (availability, accessibility or utilization) for any MH condition diagnosed through standardized criteria or validated tools. Seven databases were searched (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database [Embase], Global Health, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Web of Science) between January and April 2024. This review included 58 studies predominantly from high-income countries. A wide range of GIS methods were employed across studies, including hotspot analysis, network analysis and spatial analysis. Six studies explored availability, generally through measures like distribution of facilities across a population, and resource availability within 5-10-mile network buffers. Forty-six studies explored the spatial accessibility of MH services and substance-use treatment facilities using GIS. Six studies examined service utilization patterns. Equity emerged as a recurring theme across all three dimensions. GIS has the potential to emerge as a powerful tool in MH research, particularly in mapping disparities, informing service delivery and identifying high-risk zones. Expanding GIS use in trial design, implementation science and policy advocacy could help bridge critical gaps in MH service delivery, ensuring more equitable and data-driven decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".