Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23714282›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2013

Urbanisation, urbanicity, and health: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of urbanicity scales.

Sheila Cyril, John C Oldroyd, Andre Renzaho

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A novel approach to incorporate frontier areas into urban-rural geographic classifications: Integrated Metropolitan-to-Frontier Area Codes.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sheila CyrilGlobal Health and Society Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia.
John C Oldroyd
Andre Renzaho

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a plethora of studies examining the effect of increased urbanisation on health, no single study has systematically examined the measurement properties of scales used to measure urbanicity. It is critical to distinguish findings from studies that use surrogate measures of urbanicity (e.g. population density) from those that use measures rigorously tested for reliability and validity. The purpose of this study was to assess the measurement reliability and validity of the available urbanicity scales and identify areas where more research is needed to facilitate the development of a standardised measure of urbanicity.

methodsDatabases searched were MEDLINE with Full Text, CINAHL with Full Text, and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) as well as Embase (Ovid) covering the period from January 1970 to April 2012. Studies included in this systematic review were those that focused on the development of an urbanicity scale with clearly defined items or the adoption of an existing scale, included at least one outcome measure related to health, published in peer-reviewed journals, the full text was available in English and tested for validity and reliability.

resultsEleven studies met our inclusion criteria which were conducted in Sri Lanka, Austria, China, Nigeria, India and Philippines. They ranged in size from 3327 to 33,404 participants. The number of scale items ranged from 7 to 12 items in 5 studies. One study measured urban area socioeconomic disadvantage instead of urbanicity. The emerging evidence is that increased urbanisation is associated with deleterious health outcomes. It is possible that increased urbanisation is also associated with access and utilisation of health services. However, urbanicity measures differed across studies, and the reliability and validity properties of the used scales were not well established.

conclusionThere is an urgent need for studies to standardise measures of urbanicity. Longitudinal cohort studies to confirm the relationship between increased urbanisation and health outcomes are urgently needed.

Indexed as

Health StatusPopulation DensityUrban PopulationCitiesHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23714282
PMCPMC3671972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.