In the analysis of spatially referenced public health data, members of different disciplinary groups (geographers, epidemiologists and statisticians) tend to select different methodological approaches, usually those with which they are already familiar. This paper compares three such approaches in terms of their relative value and results. A single public health dataset, derived from a community survey, is analysed by using ‘traditional’ epidemiological methods, GIS and point pattern analysis. Since they adopt different ‘models’ for addressing the same research question, the three approaches produce some variation in the results for specific health-related variables. Taken overall, however, the results complement, rather than contradict or duplicate each other.