Off the beaten path: A scoping review of how 'rural' is defined by the U.S. government for rural health promotion.

IF 2.4 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Promotion Perspectives Pub Date : 2022-05-29 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.34172/hpp.2022.02
Elisa M Childs, Javier F Boyas, Julianne R Blackburn
{"title":"Off the beaten path: A scoping review of how 'rural' is defined by the U.S. government for rural health promotion.","authors":"Elisa M Childs,&nbsp;Javier F Boyas,&nbsp;Julianne R Blackburn","doi":"10.34172/hpp.2022.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Given the recognition that the U.S. government lacks a consensus definition of the word <i>rural</i>, the purpose of this scoping review was to uncover how the federal government defines the term and to establish a nuanced understanding of what criterion is used to designate an area as rural. <b>Methods:</b> Arksey and O'Malley's framework was used to synthesize, analyze, and summarize the existing literature. A multi-system search was conducted, and articles were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. <b>Results:</b> Initially, 929 articles were screened that used the search terms <i>rural</i> and some variation of the word <i>definition</i>. After eliminating all ineligble studies, 49 documents were included in the final analysis. These documents revealed 33 federal definitions of <i>rural</i>. The majority of definitions centered on either population, population density, or urban integration provisions. Additionally, the analysis showed that the literature could be separated into two categories: how <i>rural</i> was defined in a particular industry or for a specific population and the multiple adverse effects of having multiple definitions of <i>rural</i>. <b>Conclusion:</b> The discrepancies found in current classification systems reveal the need for a standardized definition of <i>rural</i>. Ultimately, policies centered on securing health care services for rural populations are impacted by whatever definition of <i>rural</i> is used. Failing to establish a gold standard definition of <i>rural</i> could have harmful consequences to the health and wellbeing of the many people living in rural communities across the U.S.</p>","PeriodicalId":46588,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Perspectives","volume":"12 1","pages":"10-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9277290/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2022.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given the recognition that the U.S. government lacks a consensus definition of the word rural, the purpose of this scoping review was to uncover how the federal government defines the term and to establish a nuanced understanding of what criterion is used to designate an area as rural. Methods: Arksey and O'Malley's framework was used to synthesize, analyze, and summarize the existing literature. A multi-system search was conducted, and articles were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. Results: Initially, 929 articles were screened that used the search terms rural and some variation of the word definition. After eliminating all ineligble studies, 49 documents were included in the final analysis. These documents revealed 33 federal definitions of rural. The majority of definitions centered on either population, population density, or urban integration provisions. Additionally, the analysis showed that the literature could be separated into two categories: how rural was defined in a particular industry or for a specific population and the multiple adverse effects of having multiple definitions of rural. Conclusion: The discrepancies found in current classification systems reveal the need for a standardized definition of rural. Ultimately, policies centered on securing health care services for rural populations are impacted by whatever definition of rural is used. Failing to establish a gold standard definition of rural could have harmful consequences to the health and wellbeing of the many people living in rural communities across the U.S.

不走寻常路:美国政府在农村健康促进中如何定义“农村”的范围审查。
背景:鉴于美国政府对“农村”一词缺乏一致的定义,本范围审查的目的是揭示联邦政府如何定义该术语,并建立对用于将一个地区指定为农村的标准的细微理解。方法:采用Arksey和O’malley的框架对已有文献进行综合、分析和总结。进行了多系统检索,并由两名独立审稿人使用预测试表格筛选文章的合格性。结果:最初,929篇文章被筛选,使用搜索词农村和一些变化的词的定义。在排除所有不符合条件的研究后,49篇文献被纳入最终分析。这些文件揭示了联邦政府对农村的33个定义。大多数定义集中于人口、人口密度或城市一体化规定。此外,分析表明,文献可以分为两类:如何在特定行业或特定人群中定义农村,以及对农村进行多种定义的多重不利影响。结论:现行分类体系存在的差异表明有必要对农村进行标准化定义。最终,以确保为农村人口提供保健服务为中心的政策受到使用何种农村定义的影响。如果不能为农村建立一个黄金标准定义,可能会对生活在美国农村社区的许多人的健康和福祉产生有害的影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Promotion Perspectives
Health Promotion Perspectives PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.30%
发文量
27
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信