Tracy Onega1,2,3,4, Julie E Weiss1,3, Jennifer Alford-Teaster1,3,4, Martha Goodrich1,3, M Scottie Eliassen5, Sunny Jung Kim6,7. 1. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 2. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 5. Departments of Community and Family Medicine and Medical Education, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 6. Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 7. Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the concordance between individuals' self-reported rural-urban category of their community and ZIP Code-derived Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) category. METHODS: An Internet-based survey, administered from August 2017 through November 2017, was used to collect participants' sociodemographic characteristics, self-reported ZIP Code of residence, and perception of which RUCA category best describes the community in which they live. We calculated weighted kappa (ĸ) coefficients (95% confidence interval [CI]) to test for concordance between participants' ZIP Code-derived RUCA category and their selection of RUCA descriptor. Descriptive frequency distributions of participants' demographics are presented. FINDINGS: A total of 622 survey participants, residents of New Hampshire (63%) and Vermont (37%), responded to the survey's self-reported rural-urban category. The overall ĸ was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.27-0.38). The highest concordance was found among those living in a small rural area (N = 81, 13%): 62% of this group identified their communities as small rural. Sixty-five percent (300/459) of participants residing in urban or large rural areas reported their community as more rural (small rural or isolated). Sixty-eight percent (111/163) of participants living in small rural or isolated areas identified their community as more urban (large rural or urban). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance was found between self-report of rural-urban category and ZIP Code-derived RUCA designation. Caution is warranted when attributing rural-urban designation to individuals based on geographic unit, since perceived rurality/urbanicity of their community that relates to health behaviors may not be reflected.
PURPOSE: This study examined the concordance between individuals' self-reported rural-urban category of their community and ZIP Code-derived Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) category. METHODS: An Internet-based survey, administered from August 2017 through November 2017, was used to collect participants' sociodemographic characteristics, self-reported ZIP Code of residence, and perception of which RUCA category best describes the community in which they live. We calculated weighted kappa (ĸ) coefficients (95% confidence interval [CI]) to test for concordance between participants' ZIP Code-derived RUCA category and their selection of RUCA descriptor. Descriptive frequency distributions of participants' demographics are presented. FINDINGS: A total of 622 survey participants, residents of New Hampshire (63%) and Vermont (37%), responded to the survey's self-reported rural-urban category. The overall ĸ was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.27-0.38). The highest concordance was found among those living in a small rural area (N = 81, 13%): 62% of this group identified their communities as small rural. Sixty-five percent (300/459) of participants residing in urban or large rural areas reported their community as more rural (small rural or isolated). Sixty-eight percent (111/163) of participants living in small rural or isolated areas identified their community as more urban (large rural or urban). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance was found between self-report of rural-urban category and ZIP Code-derived RUCA designation. Caution is warranted when attributing rural-urban designation to individuals based on geographic unit, since perceived rurality/urbanicity of their community that relates to health behaviors may not be reflected.
Authors: Elise L Rice; Minal Patel; Katrina J Serrano; Chan L Thai; Kelly D Blake; Robin C Vanderpool Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Aimee S James; Wiley D Jenkins; Sonya R Izadi; Amanda J Fogleman; David E Steward; Graham A Colditz; Laurent Brard Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kevin A Matthews; Janet B Croft; Yong Liu; Hua Lu; Dafna Kanny; Anne G Wheaton; Timothy J Cunningham; Laura Kettel Khan; Ralph S Caraballo; James B Holt; Paul I Eke; Wayne H Giles Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2017-02-03
Authors: S Jane Henley; Robert N Anderson; Cheryll C Thomas; Greta M Massetti; Brandy Peaker; Lisa C Richardson Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2017-07-07
Authors: Madeline R Sterling; Crystal W Cené; Joanna Bryan Ringel; Ariel C Avgar; Erin E Kent Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.667
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Natalie Del Vecchio; Natoshia Askelson; Jan M Eberth; Robin C Vanderpool; Linda Overholser; Purnima Madhivanan; Rachel Hirschey; Jean Edward Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Paul J Joudrey; Nicholas Chadi; Payel Roy; Kenneth L Morford; Paxton Bach; Simeon Kimmel; Emily A Wang; Susan L Calcaterra Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Alfred Jerrod Anzalone; Ronald Horswell; Brian M Hendricks; San Chu; William B Hillegass; William H Beasley; Jeremy R Harper; Wesley Kimble; Clifford J Rosen; Lucio Miele; James C McClay; Susan L Santangelo; Sally L Hodder Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 5.667