Cross-sectional analysis maps provider availability in rehabilitation services, suggesting improvements in workforce planning.
BACKGROUND Access to rehabilitation services is a critical, yet an understudied, dimension of health equity. Among the six domains of access, provider availability, defined as the presence of sufficient providers to meet population needs, is particularly underexplored in rehabilitation professions such as physical and occupational therapy. Current data reporting often lacks the geographic granularity required for effective workforce planning. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of mapping rehabilitation provider availability at the census tract level using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), integrating public licensure and population data to inform equitable workforce planning. METHODS A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted using publicly available state licensure data for physical and occupational therapists and demographic data from the American Community Survey. Residential provider addresses were geocoded and matched to 2020 census tracts. Provider-to-population ratios were calculated and mapped using choropleth and bivariate mapping techniques. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to compare sociodemographic characteristics between areas with high and low provider availability. RESULTS Provider availability varied widely across census tracts in Texas, with population-to-provider ratios ranging from 4 to 11,147 individuals per provider. Bivariate maps highlighted census tracts where high disability prevalence intersected with low provider availability, identifying areas of high need. CONCLUSIONS This GIS-based study offers a novel, and feasible approach to mapping rehabilitation provider availability. The methodology enables small-area spatial analysis and can be adapted for use across other health professions and geographic regions. Findings support its utility in health equity research and workforce policy development aimed at improving access to care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ratoza et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: