3.8 Article

Integrating activity spaces in health research: Comparing the VERITAS activity space questionnaire with 7-day GPS tracking and prompted recall

Journal

SPATIAL AND SPATIO-TEMPORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue -, Pages 1-9

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sste.2017.12.003

Keywords

GPS; VERITAS; Activity locations; Activity space; Multiple exposures

Funding

  1. INPES (National Institute for Prevention and Health Education)
  2. Ministry of Ecology (DGITM)
  3. CERTU (Centre for the Study of Networks, Transport, Urbanism, and Public constructions)
  4. ARS (Health Regional Agency) of France Regional Council
  5. RATP (Paris Public Transport Operator)
  6. Ile-de-France, STIF (Ile-de-France Transport Authority)
  7. IDRIEA (Regional and Interdepartmental Direction for Equipment and Planning)
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR-TOO-105427]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Accounting for daily mobility allows assessment of multiple exposure to environments. This study compares spatial data obtained (i) from an interactive map-based questionnaire on regular activity locations (VERITAS) and (ii) from GPS tracking. Methods: 234 participants of the RECORD GPS Study completed the VERITAS questionnaire and wore a GPS tracker for 7 days. Analyses illustrate the spatial match between both datasets. Results: For half of the sample, 85.5% of GPS data fell within 500 m of a VERITAS location. The median minimum distance between a VERITAS location and a GPS coordinate ranged from 0.4 m for home to slightly over 100 m for a recreational destination. Conclusions: There is a spatial correspondence between destinations collected through VERITAS and 7-day GPS tracking. Both collection methods offer complementary ways to assess daily mobilities, useful to study environmental determinants of health and health inequities. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available