Population estimation error and its impact on 1991–1999 cancer rates

Professional Geographer

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 516-529

  Boscoe, Francis P ^a   Miller, Barry A ^b  

^a NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

2000 census; Cancer rates; Error of closure; Population estimates

Indexed keywords

CANCER; CENSUS; DEMOGRAPHIC METHOD; POPULATION ESTIMATION;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 8744281490     PISSN: 00330124     EISSN: 14679272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.2004.00445.x     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allen, J. P., and E. Turner. 2001. Bridging 1990 and 2000 census race data: Fractional assignment of multiracial populations. Population Research and Policy Review 20 (6): 513-33.
2. Batutis, M. J. 1995. Subnational estimates of total population by the tax return methodology. Unpublished technical paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Branch.
3. Benson, V., and M. A. Marano. 1998. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics 10 (199): 1-428.
4. Bhopal, R., and L. Donaldson. 1998. White, European, Western, Caucasian or what? Inappropriate labeling in research on race, ethnicity and health. American Journal of Public Health 88 (9): 1303-07.
5. CancerLetter. 2002. Faultyestimates led NCI to overstate black-white cancer disparity in Atlanta. Cancer Letter 28 (34): 1-5.
6. Choldin, H. 1994. Looking for the last percent: The controversy over census undercounts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
7. Clegg, L. X., E. J. Feuer, D. N. Midthune, M. P. Fay, and B. F. Hankey. 2002. Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and trends. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94 (20): 1537-45.
8. Deming, W E., and F. F. Stephan. 1940. On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11 (4): 427-44.
9. Esteve, J., E. Benhamou, and L. Raymond. 1994. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 4: Descriptive epidemiology. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
10. Fagan, J.T., andB.V Greenberg. 1985. Algorithmsfor making tables additive: Raking, maximum likelihood andminimumchi-square. Statistical Research Report Series RR85/15. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
11. Fullilove, M. T. 1998. Abandoning “race” as avariable in public health research-An idea whose time has come. American Journal ofPublic Health 88 (9): 1297-98.
12. Gatrell, A. C., and M. Loytonen, eds. 1998. GIS and Health. London: Taylor and Francis.
13. Gelman, A., and P. N. Price. 1999. All maps of parameter estimates are misleading. Statistics in Medicine 18 (23): 3221-34.
14. Georgia Center for Cancer Statistics. 2002. Statistics and Tables for Metropolitan Atlanta SEER 1992, http://www.sph.emory.edu/GCCS/GCCS-data/index.html (last accessed 12 December 2002).
15. Grieco, E. M. 2002. An evaluation of bridging methods using race data from Census 2000. Population Research and Policy Review 21 (1): 91-107.
16. Hahn, R. A. 1999. Why race is differentially classified on U.S. birth and infant death certificates: An examination of two hypotheses. Epidemiology 10 (2): 108-11.
17. Hankey, B. F., L. A. Ries, and B. K. Edwards. 1999. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program: A national resource. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 8 (12): 1117-21.
18. Holman, R. C., A. T. Curns, S. F. Kaufman, J. E. Cheek, R. W. Pinner, and L. B. Schonberger. 2001. Trends in infectious disease hospitalizations among American Indians and Alaska natives. American Journal of Public Health 91 (3): 425-31.
19. Howe, H. L., P. A. Wingo, M. J. Thun, L. A. G. Ries, H. M. Rosenberg, E. G. Feigal, and B. K. Edwards. 2001. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer(1973 to 1998), featuringcancerswithrecent increasing trends. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93 (11): 824-42.
20. Judson, D. H., C. L. Popoff, and M. J. Batutis. 2001. An evaluation of the accuracy of U.S. Census Bureau county population estimates. Statistics in Transition 5 (2): 205-35.
21. Kaufman, J. S. 1999. How inconsistencies in racial classification demystify the race construct in public health statistics. Epidemiology 10 (2): 101-03.
22. Kaufman, J. S., and R. S. Cooper. 2001. Considerations for use of racial/ethnic classification in etio-logic research. AmericanJournal ofEpidemiology 154 (4): 291-98.
23. Kirby, R.S. 1996. Toward congruence between theory and practice in small area analysis and local public health data. Statistics in Medicine 15 (17): 1859-66.
24. Krieger, N., J. T Chen, P. D. Waterman, M. Soo-bader, S. V. Subramanian, and R. Carson. 2002. Geocoding and monitoring of U.S. socioeconomic inequalities in mortalityand cancerincidence: Does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? American Journal of Epidemiology 156 (5): 471-82.
25. Lee, N. C. 2001. The unequal cancer burden: Efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to bridge the gap through public health. Cancer 91 (1): 199-204.
26. Leffall, L. D. 2001. Foreward. Cancer 91 (51): 189-92.
27. Lunn, D. J., S. N. Simpson, I. Diamond, and L. Middleton. 1998. The accuracy of age-specific population estimates for small areas in Britain. Population Studies 52 (3): 327-44.
28. Morello, C. 2001. Native American roots, once hidden, now embraced. Washington Post, 7 April: A1.
29. National Cancer Insitute. 2002. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Pub-lic-Use Data (1973-1999). Released April 2002, based on the November 2001 submission. Bet-hesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch.
30. National Cancer Insitute. 2003a. State cancer profiles: Dynamic views of cancer statistics for prioritizing cancer control efforts in the nation, states, and counties. http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov (last accessed 1 June 2003).
31. National Cancer Insitute. 2003b. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Public-Use Data (1973-1999). Released April 2003, based on the November 2002 submission. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance ResearchProgram, Cancer Statistics Branch.
32. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System. 2003. Bridged April 1, 2000, population counts for the four race groups (white, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander) by county, single year of age (0, 1, 2,…, and 85 years and over), sex, and Hispanic origin (not Hispanic or Latino, Hispanic or Latino). Released 12 January 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm (last accessed 1 August 2003).
33. Office of Management and Budget. 1997. Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register 62FR58781-58790, 30 October 1997. http://www.whitehouse.gov/wh/eop/omb/html/fedreg.html (last accessed (5) December 2002).
34. Office of Management and Budget. 2000. Provisional guidance on the implementation of the 1997 standards for the collection of federal data on race and ethnicity. 15 December 2000. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/r&eguidance2000update.pdf (last accessed 1 December 2002).
35. Oppenheimer, G. M. 2001. Paradigm lost: Race, ethnicity, and the search for a new population taxonomy. American Journal of Public Health 91 (7): 1049-55.
36. Ouimet, M. 2002. Explaining the American and Ca-nadiancrime “drop”inthe 1990s. CanadianJournal of Criminology 44 (1): 33-50.
37. Parker, J., N. Schenker, D. Ingram, J. Weed, E. Arias, B. Hamilton, and J. Madans. 2002. A method to bridge multiple-race responses to single-race categories for population denominators of vital event rates. Proceedings of the 12th Federal Forecasters Conference. Washington, DC.
38. Parker, J. D., and D. M. Makuc. 2002. Methodologic implications ofallocating multiple-race data to single-race categories. Health Services Research 37 (1): 203-15.
39. Robbin, A. 1999. The problematic status of U.S. statistics on race and ethnicity: An “imperfect representation of reality.” Journal of Government Information 26 (5): 467-83.
40. Robbin, A. 2000. The politics of representation in the U.S. national statistical system: Origins of minority population interest group participation. Journal of Government Information 27 (4): 431-53.
41. Robinson, J. G., K. K. West, and A. Adlakha. 2002. Coverage of the population in Census 2000: Results from demographic analysis. Population Research and Policy Review 21 (1-2): 19-38.
42. Sachs, S. 2001. City population tops 8 million in census count for first time. New York Times, 16 March: A1, B7.
43. Schein, R. H. 2002. Race, racism and geography: Introduction. The Professional Geographer 54(1): 1-5.
44. Snell, T. 2001. Population boom? Tribal registration up despite sagging national numbers. Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate http://www.Cherokee.org/Phoenix/XXVno3_summer2001/NewsMakersPage.asp?ID=2 (last accessed 6 July 2004).
45. Swanson, D. A., H. J. Kintner, and M. McGehee. 1995. Mean square error confidence intervals for measuring uncertainty in intercensal net migration estimates: A case study of Arkansas, 1980-1990. Journal ofEconomic and Social Measurement 21 (2): 85-126.
46. Taylor, R. 2001. Small area population disease burden. Australian and New Zealand Journal ofPublic Health 25 (4): 289-93.
47. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. 1990 Census Summary Tape File 1 (STF1) 100 percent data. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
48. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. 1990 to 1999 annual time series of countypopulation estimates byage, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/county/co_casrh.php (last accessed 1 December 2002).
49. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001. Methodology for estimates of state and county total population. http://eire.census.gov/ popest/topics/methodology/states.php (last accessed 27 November 2003).
50. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2003. Technical summaryofA.C.E. Revision II for the Committee on National Statistics. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/ExecSumm.pdf (last accessed 1 July 2003).
51. University of Virginia. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. 2002. Revised intercensal population estimates for Virginia counties and cities: 1991-1999. http://www.ccps.virginia.edu/Demo-graphics/estimates/city-co/Methodology.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2002).
52. Wahlberg, D. 2002. Black cancer data revised Atlanta figures were too high. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 27 September: C1.
53. Wakefield, J., and P. Elliott. 1999. Issues in the statistical analysis of small area health data. Statistics in Medicine 18 (17-18): 2377-99.
54. Wingo, P. A., P. M. Jamison, R. A. Hiatt, H. K. Weir, P. M. Gargiullo, M. Hutton, N. C. Lee, and H. I. Hall. 2003. Building the infrastructure for nationwide cancer surveillance and control-A comparison between the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 14 (2): 175-93.
55. Wong, D. W. S. 1992. The reliability of using the iterative proportional fitting procedure. The Professional Geographer 44 (3): 340-48.
56. Word, D. L. 1992. The Census Bureau approach for allocating internal migration to states, counties and places: 1981-1991. Technical Working Paper 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, PopulationDivision.