Sanae Inagami1,2, Shasha Gao3, Hassan Karimi4, Martine M Shendge, Janice C Probst5,6, Roslyn A Stone3. 1. Primary Care Service Line, VA Pittsburgh Health Care Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Health Care Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 6. South Carolina Rural Health Research Center, Columbia, South Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate analysis of health problems facing rural residents depends on how rurality is defined. Health services research relies frequently on the rural urban commuting area (RUCA) codes to estimate rurality at the small area level. We modified the county-level Index of Relative Rurality (IRR) to the ZIP code level (IRRZIP ) to create an alternative small-area-level rural classification system. We then compared how the 2 rural classification systems differ in how rural areas and populations are defined and in methodological analysis. METHODS: We linked data for veterans (n = 37,466) who attended the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System to 2000 United States Census and the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service data. RESULTS: The RUCA and the IRRZIP do not consistently classify the same ZIP code areas and populations as rural. Using the IRRZIP , each 10th increment in increased rurality was associated with a 2.6 increased odds of receiving primary care at a satellite clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The IRRZIP is a straightforward measure that is easy to use and interpret and may be a relevant alternative rural classification system that can be used in health services research.
BACKGROUND: Accurate analysis of health problems facing rural residents depends on how rurality is defined. Health services research relies frequently on the rural urban commuting area (RUCA) codes to estimate rurality at the small area level. We modified the county-level Index of Relative Rurality (IRR) to the ZIP code level (IRRZIP ) to create an alternative small-area-level rural classification system. We then compared how the 2 rural classification systems differ in how rural areas and populations are defined and in methodological analysis. METHODS: We linked data for veterans (n = 37,466) who attended the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System to 2000 United States Census and the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service data. RESULTS: The RUCA and the IRRZIP do not consistently classify the same ZIP code areas and populations as rural. Using the IRRZIP , each 10th increment in increased rurality was associated with a 2.6 increased odds of receiving primary care at a satellite clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The IRRZIP is a straightforward measure that is easy to use and interpret and may be a relevant alternative rural classification system that can be used in health services research.
Authors: Janessa M Graves; Jessica L Mackelprang; Megan Moore; Demetrius A Abshire; Frederick P Rivara; Nathalia Jimenez; Molly Fuentes; Monica S Vavilala Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Laura A Fraade-Blanar; Ryan N Hansen; Kwun Chuen G Chan; Jeanne M Sears; Hilaire J Thompson; Paul K Crane; Beth E Ebel Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2018-03-07
Authors: Anna M Gorczyca; Richard A Washburn; Lauren Ptomey; Matthew S Mayo; Debra K Sullivan; Cheryl A Gibson; Robert Lee; Sarah Stolte; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Makoto Kaneko; Ryuichi Ohta; Evelyn Vingilis; Maria Mathews; Thomas Robert Freeman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sue Crengle; Gabrielle Davie; Jesse Whitehead; Brandon de Graaf; Ross Lawrenson; Garry Nixon Journal: Lancet Reg Health West Pac Date: 2022-08-18
Authors: Sally J Wadsworth; Robin P Corley; Elizabeth Munoz; B Paige Trubenstein; Elijah Knaap; John C DeFries; Robert Plomin; Chandra A Reynolds Journal: Twin Res Hum Genet Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: M Bryant Howren; Shelby L Francis; Linnea A Polgreen; Cody Shafer; Angela Hoth; Michael E Ohl Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.792