Scanfinder

Scanfinder › Research

Potential geographic access to diagnostic imaging services in Australia: a national population-weighted road-network analysis by modality

Open research protocol

A prespecified national study of how far Australians live by road from registered X-ray, ultrasound, CT, MRI, nuclear medicine and PET practices.

Scanfinder Research Group

Protocol 0.2 Published 11 August 2026Australia Results not yet published

This page contains methods, not findings. The destination audit, population inputs and road-network analysis will be frozen before any result is added. Empty charts and illustrative values are deliberately absent.

Research question

How far is the scan people need?

Among people living in Australia, what is potential geographic access by road to registered diagnostic-imaging locations, separately for each major modality, at a frozen study date?

X-rayGeneral radiography
UltrasoundSonography
CTComputed tomography
MRIMagnetic resonance
Nuclear medicineRegistered services
PETPositron emission

The study measures registered physical proximity. It does not measure appointments, waiting time, scanner or workforce capacity, affordability, clinical eligibility, service quality, utilisation or health outcomes.

Figure 1

From population grid to access estimates

The study is a cross-sectional ecological spatial-access analysis. Every input and transformation will be versioned so the published numbers can be reproduced.

Population origins

Populated one-kilometre 2021 ABS Population Grid cells, with Mesh Blocks for classifications and a sensitivity analysis.

Imaging destinations

A dated LSPN-derived inventory, deduplicated into physical practices and independently audited by modality, jurisdiction and remoteness.

Road routing

A frozen OpenStreetMap extract and routing-engine profile. Failed routes stay missing; straight-line distance never silently replaces them.

Access outcomes

Nearest, second and third site; travel-time distributions; provider choice; and stratification by remoteness, IRSD and jurisdiction.

Figure 1. Prespecified analytical flow. No patient records, names, referrals or clinical outcomes are used.

Table 1

Outcomes fixed before analysis

Thresholds are descriptive reporting bands, not definitions of adequate access.

Table 1. Prespecified primary and secondary outcomes
Outcome familyMeasuresReported for
Nearest physical siteRoad time and distance; population-weighted median, 75th and 90th percentilesEach modality nationally and by remoteness, IRSD and jurisdiction
Descriptive access bandsPopulation within 15, 30, 60 and 120 minutesEach modality, with denominator and missing routes
Alternative physical sitesTime to the second and third site; time penalty from first to secondEach modality
Provider choicePhysical sites and distinct provider groups within 30, 60 and 120 minutesEach modality; unknown ownership remains unknown
Conditional MRI analysisRoad time to a location on the dated government MRI-location listOnly if linkage validation succeeds; never presented as a rebate guarantee

Table 2

What earlier Australian studies answer—and what they do not

The contribution is deliberately narrow. Earlier work already covers national imaging use, regional cardiac-imaging utilisation, mammography clinic access and national BreastScreen drive times.

Table 2. Verified evidence defining the study's novelty boundary
SourceWhat it measuredRemaining question
Lu et al., 2024National Medicare-funded imaging utilisation, 2000–2021 Did not measure clinic locations or patient road access
Fonseca et al., 2015Regional variation in reimbursed outpatient cardiac imaging across Medicare LocalsUtilisation is not branch-level physical access
Hyndman and Holman, 2000Population-weighted road distance to seven mammography clinics in metropolitan PerthNot national, current or multi-modality
AIHW, 2024National drive time to permanent and visiting BreastScreen servicesScreening mammography is not general diagnostic imaging
Filipcikova et al., 2026National road travel to hospitals, emergency departments, GPs and pharmaciesRadiology practices and imaging modalities were not included
This protocolContemporary registered non-screening practices, national population origins and six modalitiesPotential geographic access only—not realised access, capacity, cost or quality

Publication plan

Figures and tables that will carry the findings

The completed report will pair accessible web figures with vector publication exports and downloadable aggregate data. Every value will come from the same frozen result table.

  1. Six aligned national access mapsOne shared travel-time legend across X-ray, ultrasound, CT, MRI, nuclear medicine and PET.
  2. Cumulative population access curvesThe share of Australians within each road-time threshold, with missing routes shown.
  3. Remoteness and IRSD gradientsWeighted medians, tails and access bands without disguising ecological limits.
  4. Alternative-site and provider-choice gapsHow much farther the second physical site or distinct provider group is.
  5. Destination validation tableRaw records, physical sites, audited errors and uncertainty by modality.
  6. Reproducible sensitivity figureThe effect of deduplication, origin, route and uncertain-destination decisions.

No result graphic will be published until its source table, caption, accessible summary and downloadable CSV all agree.

Cite this protocol

This permanent URL identifies the public protocol. The version and date make clear that it precedes the outcome analysis.

Scanfinder Research Group. Potential geographic access to diagnostic imaging services in Australia: a national population-weighted road-network analysis by modality. Protocol 0.2. Scanfinder; 2026. Available from: https://scanfinder.app/research/geographic-access-to-imaging-australia/

Verified full texts

References used on this page

  1. Lu P, Mian M, Yii M, et al. Rising use of diagnostic imaging in Australia: An analysis of Medicare-funded radiology services between 2000 and 2021. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024;68:50–56. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.13591
  2. Fonseca R, Otahal P, Wiggins N, Marwick TH. Growth and geographical variation in the use of cardiac imaging in Australia. Intern Med J. 2015;45:1115–1127. doi:10.1111/imj.12867
  3. Hyndman JCG, Holman CDJ. Differential effects on socioeconomic groups of modelling the location of mammography screening clinics using Geographic Information Systems. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24:281–286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2000.tb01569.x
  4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Access to BreastScreen Australia screening services. Canberra: AIHW; 2024. Cat. no. CAN 158. Report
  5. Filipcikova M, Jorm L, Barbieri S. Travel times and distances to health services in Australia. Sci Data. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41597-025-06381-y
  6. Wood SM, Alston L, Beks H, et al. The application of spatial measures to analyse health service accessibility in Australia: a systematic review and recommendations for future practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:330. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09342-6