Cargando…

Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review

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 defi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Danek, Robin, Blackburn, Justin, Greene, Marion, Mazurenko, Olena, Menachemi, Nir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9652888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36369057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9
_version_ 1784828573090054144
author Danek, Robin
Blackburn, Justin
Greene, Marion
Mazurenko, Olena
Menachemi, Nir
author_facet Danek, Robin
Blackburn, Justin
Greene, Marion
Mazurenko, Olena
Menachemi, Nir
author_sort Danek, Robin
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9652888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96528882022-11-15 Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review Danek, Robin Blackburn, Justin Greene, Marion Mazurenko, Olena Menachemi, Nir BMC Health Serv Res Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9. BioMed Central 2022-11-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9652888/ /pubmed/36369057 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Danek, Robin
Blackburn, Justin
Greene, Marion
Mazurenko, Olena
Menachemi, Nir
Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
title Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
title_full Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
title_fullStr Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
title_short Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
title_sort measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9652888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36369057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08678-9
work_keys_str_mv AT danekrobin measuringruralityinhealthservicesresearchascopingreview
AT blackburnjustin measuringruralityinhealthservicesresearchascopingreview
AT greenemarion measuringruralityinhealthservicesresearchascopingreview
AT mazurenkoolena measuringruralityinhealthservicesresearchascopingreview
AT menacheminir measuringruralityinhealthservicesresearchascopingreview