Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
dc.contributor.author | Danek, Robin | |
dc.contributor.author | Blackburn, Justin | |
dc.contributor.author | Greene, Marion | |
dc.contributor.author | Mazurenko, Olena | |
dc.contributor.author | Menachemi, Nir | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-02-26T15:27:49Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-02-26T15:27:49Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022-11-12 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: This study is a scoping review of the different methods used to measure rurality in the health services research (HSR) literature. Methods: We identified peer-reviewed empirical studies from 2010-2020 from seven leading HSR journals, including the Journal of Rural Health, that used any definition to measure rurality as a part of their analysis. From each study, we identified the geographic unit (e.g., county, zip code) and definition (e.g., Rural Urban Continuum Codes, Rural Urban Commuting Areas) used to classify categories of rurality. We analyzed whether geographic units and definitions used to classify rurality differed by focus area of studies, including costs, quality, and access to care. Lastly, we examined the number of rural categories used by authors to assess rural areas. Findings: In 103 included studies, five different geographic units and 11 definitions were used to measure rurality. The most common geographic units used to measure rurality were county (n = 59, 57%), which was used most frequently in studies examining cost (n = 12, 75%) and access (n = 33, 57.9%). Rural Urban Commuting Area codes were the most common definition used to measure rurality for studies examining access (n = 13, 22.8%) and quality (n = 10, 44%). The majority of included studies made rural versus urban comparisons (n = 82, 80%) as opposed to focusing on rural populations only (n = 21, 20%). Among studies that compared rural and urban populations, most studies used only one category to identify rural locations (n = 49 of 82 studies, 60%). Conclusion: Geographic units and definitions to determine rurality were used inconsistently within and across studies with an HSR focus. This finding may affect how health disparities by rural location are determined and thus how resources and federal funds are allocated. Future research should focus on developing a standardized system to determine under what circumstances researchers should use different geographic units and methods to determine rurality by HSR focus area. | |
dc.identifier.citation | Danek R, Blackburn J, Greene M, Mazurenko O, Menachemi N. Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1340. Published 2022 Nov 12. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1805/38653 | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | BMC | |
dc.relation.isversionof | 10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9 | |
dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International | en |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.subject | Health services research | |
dc.subject | Literature review | |
dc.subject | Rural health | |
dc.subject | Health policy | |
dc.title | Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review | |
dc.type | Article |