The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 133, No 5, 636-642.
© 2002 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SUSI, L.
Right arrow Articles by MASCARENHAS, A. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by SUSI, L.
Right arrow Articles by MASCARENHAS, A. K.

TRENDS

Using a geographical information system to map the distribution of dentists in Ohio



LOUIS SUSI, B.A. and ANA KARINA MASCARENHAS, B.D.S., Dr.P.H.

Background. Studies have reported that dental care is the highest unmet health care need in the United States and have evaluated this in terms of individual determinants of access and utilization. None of these studies took into consideration the provider issues of availability and accessibility or of spatial relations. The aim of this study was to analyze issues of provider availability and accessibility in Ohio using a geographical information system, or GIS.

Methods. Three Ohio databases were geocoded using GIS software. The databases included all 6,132 dentists licensed to practice in Ohio, 1,898 dentists who had billed the state Medicaid program in 1998 and safety-net clinics that provided free or low-cost care. Each practitioner was mapped at the county and ZIP code levels.

Results. Results are reported using maps at the county and ZIP code levels. The maps showed that 69.4 percent of dentists practiced in 12 metropolitan counties, 14 percent in 17 suburban counties and 16.6 percent in 59 rural counties (rural non-Appalachian counties plus Appalachian counties). In Appalachia, the dentist-to-population ratio was about one-half that of the metropolitan counties.

Conclusion. Obvious disparities exist in the distribution of dentists in Ohio, particularly in rural and Appalachian counties. The need to increase the availability of dentists in these counties is evident.

Practice Implications. GIS is a useful tool for evaluating provider distribution and availability and planning programs to attract dentists to areas with small numbers of dentists.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
H. L. Lin, M. L. Rowland, and H. W. Fields
In-State Graduate Retention for U.S. Dental Schools
J Dent Educ., December 1, 2006; 70(12): 1320 - 1327.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2002 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.