Monday, March 15, 2021

PCCF+ Question: Improving Patient Access to Hospital Clinics

December 15, 2020

Question

I have a researcher using the PCCF+ to look at improving patient access to hospital clinics. They are calculating the distance a patient travels from home to clinic but are finding that each time they run the data they are getting different lat/longs. The trouble is that they have multiple cohorts and some patients could be in more than one cohort. 


With getting different lat/longs, they are sometimes finding the difference in one patient’s lat/long can be as much as 36KM. Is there a way to account for this variance in results? Is there any way to limit the amount of difference between results for a person who is in multiple cohorts? I have included the researcher’s original question below:

 

----- Original question -----

[Note – ‘pts’ and ‘pt’ means patient]

 

We are using the software to calculate distance from a pts. postal code to the hospital, and several other satellite clinics, but I am finding each time I run the data, I can get a different latitude and longitude for the same postal code within the same data run and across various data runs.

 

To give you an example:

Run 1:

Pts attending a clinic appointment between 2014-2017 (a pt. could have attended multiple times, some pts. have the same postal code but live in a different location – especially in rural cases)

 

Run 2:

Pts. attending clinic between 2018-2019 (some of these pts. may also have been seen in the 2014-17 cohort)

 

Hence, run 2 will still likely contain pts. that also attended an appointment in run 1, but it is quite likely PCCF+ will assign a different lat and long. for that pt.

 

We were planning to run different types of analysis and a pt. could be included in more than one analysis, resulting in a possible different lat and long each time, which when then comparing cohorts would mean we are not always using the same lat and long for a patient.

 

I am trying to figure out the possible variance. To run all the 2014-2019 data in one go and then try to separate into the various different cohorts would be extremely time consuming as cross reference would need to be made back to my tracking sheets to figure out what year the pts. appointment was. Currently planning on 6 different runs, with overlapping pts. across the runs and multiple duplicate postal codes.

 

I have discovered so far for one postal code the difference between the 2 locations (driving) is as much as 36km.

 

Any help or thoughts you could provide on this would be great.

 

I was also wondering if PCCF+ allows for street addresses to be used in combination with postal codes, we may be too late this time round for that route, but it would be good to know for the future.




Answer

There could be a couple of reasons for these results:

One possible cause could be that there are, at times, multiple records for each postal code. For the most accurate results, I would confirm that the record being used is always the one where the single link indicator (SLI) is equal to one.


Additionally, the coordinates are based on the geography the postal code is geocoded to. You can check what geography the postal code is geocoded to by the variable Rep_Pt_Type. The majority of records are automatically geocoded to the block level, but there are others (mainly rural areas) that are geocoded to the Census Sub Division (CSD).


Another possible reason for the results is that we are getting regularly getting updated data from Canada Post, and we are also making corrections to the data as we find errors. This may be the cause of why you would see slight differences from year to year.


As for the last question, I would need to confirm with the team in Health Statistics responsible for the PCCF+ if they have any plans to include new variables into the file.


From Queen's University Library: Exploring CIHI's Information Resources

November 25, 2020


Please check out Exploring CIHI’s Information Resources by Queen’s University’s Graeme Campbell (Government Information Librarian) and Alexandra Cooper (Data Services Coordinator).


Campbell and Cooper created the guide in response to reference questions they had about finding open data sources at CIHI and how to access data that is restricted. They contacted CIHI with a number of questions, and this guide is based on the responses that were received.


They note that it is not comprehensive, but should be able to get users started in finding CIHI resources. For some reference questions, they referred users directly to CIHI; they received the help they needed and occasionally were given tables for free that contained the data they needed. Cooper notes: the guide has CC BY-NC license so feel free to link to it or borrow information from it.

SFS Individual Files and Weights

November 20, 2020



Question
I have a researcher who is looking for the SFS PUMFs for 2016, 2012, and 2005. I was able to help him gain access to the files that are available in Nesstar and the EFT, the family level files, but he is looking for not only the bootstrap weight files for the 2012 and 2005 SFS (I found the 2016 bootstrap weights), but also the individual level files for all three years. Are those unavailable or am I just missing them?


Answer

Unfortunately, there are no bootstrap weights for the PUMF SFS datasets for the reference years 1999, 2005, 2012, the first time the SFS PUMF had bootstrap weight created was for the 2016 reference period. There are also no individual files (only family) for these years.

Recent Surveys Similar to NLSCY?

October 30, 2020


Question

I have a researcher looking for information on childhood development and well-being. They have used the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth but they would like to know if there is anything that is similar but more recent. Is there anything else I can suggest they look at?



Answer

I’ve received the following information from subject matter (two separate responses below):

 

1.       “Unfortunately, we do not have any longitudinal survey on children anymore, however, we have a brand new survey that was released in July entitled: Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth that can be accessed by selecting this table. There is not a lot of data in it because it is brand new, but that is the best data we can provide to assist the client.”

 

2.       “This would really depend on a number of factors for your client/researcher… For a longitudinal survey, unfortunately this was our more recent initiative that focused on children and their development/well-being.

 

The only other initiative within our division that touched on these topics would be: Ontario Child Health Study. But its focus was primarily on Health and was limited to Ontario children…

 


Additionally, we did conduct a RapidStats survey in 2019 called Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements, but this initiative was more focused on Child Care Arrangements…”

 

CPSS-COVID - Information Sources Consulted During the Pandemic, 2020 PUMF

November 2, 2020



We are pleased to inform you that the following product is now available:


Canadian Perspective Survey Series 4 - Information Sources Consulted During the Pandemic (CPSS-COVID), 2020 PUMF

 

In order to implement this survey rapidly, it will be conducted online only, among those who volunteered to participate in the Canadian Perspectives Survey Series (CPSS). Each survey in the series will take place approximately every month, with collection lasting approximately a week. Each respondent will participate in several short online surveys over the period of about a year. The CPSS is designed to produce data at a national level (excluding the territories).

Initially, the CPSS focused on topics related to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadians. Other topics will also be added to the series to meet the emerging data needs of a variety of users.

Information collected may be used by government organizations at all levels, as well as other types of organizations, to inform the delivery of services and support to Canadians, during and after the pandemic and to inform policy on a wide variety of other social and economic issues.

 

EFT: /MAD_PUMF_FMGD_DAM/Root/5311_CPSS-SEPC/Series 4 

PCCF+ and Socioeconomic Status Reference File

October 27, 2020


Question

I have a question from a Grad student using the PCCF+ and a file called the socioeconomic status reference file (.txt format) that should be available with the PCCF+ files.


The student found reference to this file in CIHI Measuring Health Inequalities. From the student’s email:


In the CIHI: Measuring Health Inequalities Toolkit, it says it is possible to avoid using SAS and just get this info from the PCCF. It says the following: To assign any income quintiles using PCCF, you would assign a DA to individuals in your dataset using the PCCF, and the socioeconomic status reference file (.txt format) available in the PCCF+ package to assign (the desired) income quintiles to DAs. This seems best for us because we already have a list of every DA and the stores assigned. 


I wasn’t able to find this file in the PCCF+ v7c files. Is this file available to us or is it something that only CIHI has access to?


Answer

I’ve spoken to the PCCF team and they’ve explained the following:

 

“I believe they may be naming it incorrectly – it’s not called a ‘socioeconomic status reference file’. We do provide area-based income quintiles as part of the standard output, if the user puts in their postal codes and uses the PCCF+ as suggested. There is information about that if they check the user guide.

 

They don’t need to first assign DAs to individuals. The PCCF+ will assign the DA and provide the income quintile at the same time.”

Family and Intimate Partner Violence

October 21, 2020


Question

I'm starting to get a number of requests for data on family violence and intimate partner violence--students are wanting to analyze upticks in violence with specific events.


Aside from the UCR, where else can I obtain data that covers a significant span (more than 10) of years and is current beyond 2015?


Answer

At the moment the only thing we could track down are the following 2017, 2018 and same-sex IPV reports:

 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54978/02-eng.htm

  

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00018/02-eng.htm

  

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00005-eng.htm

 

Subject matter is working on updating the 2019 UCR data as well.



Subsequent Question

Thanks! I had seen those. We're looking for numbers of incidences of assault which could be described as domestic violence in aggregate on a daily basis. When the UCR is updated, will it be more detailed? And when do you think this will be available?


Answer

From what I understand, the UCR will be more detailed. It sounds as if they are currently working on the file so I suspect it’ll be a matter of months until release (of course with the way things are going this year that timeline could change!).