Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26423746›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

A cross-sectional study on health differences between rural and non-rural U.S. counties using the County Health Rankings.

Timothy J Anderson, Daniel M Saman, Martin S Lipsky, M Nawal Lutfiyya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Rural and Urban Differences in the Trends in Supply of Home Care Workers From 2015 to 2024.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. U.S.A. trends in intrahepatic and bile duct cancers from 1999-2023.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 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

4 authors.

Timothy J AndersonEssentia Institute of Rural Health, 502 E. 2nd Street, Duluth, MN, 55805, USA. tanderson@eirh.org.
Daniel M SamanEssentia Institute of Rural Health, 502 E. 2nd Street, Duluth, MN, 55805, USA. Dsaman@eirh.org.
Martin S LipskyRoseman University of Health Sciences, 10920 S. River Front Parkway, South Jordan, UT, 84095, USA. mlipsky@roseman.edu.
M Nawal LutfiyyaNational Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Campus, MMC 501 Mayo, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. nlutfiyy@umn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBy examining 2013 County Health Rankings and Roadmaps data from the University of Wisconsin and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, this paper seeks to add to the available literature on health variances between United States residents living in rural and non-rural areas. We believe this is the first study to use the Rankings data to measure rural and urban health differences across the United States and therefore highlights the national need to address shortfalls in rural healthcare and overall health. The data indicates that U.S. residents living in rural counties are generally in poorer health than their urban counterparts.

methodsWe used 2013 County Health Rankings data to evaluate differences across the six domains of interest (mortality, morbidity, health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment) for rural and non-rural U.S. counties. This is a cross-sectional study employing chi-square analysis and logit regression.

resultsWe found that residents living in rural U.S. counties are more likely to have poorer health outcomes along a variety of measurements that comprise the County Health Rankings' indexed domains of health quality. These populations have statistically significantly (p ≤ 0.05) lower scores in such areas as health behavior, morbidity factors, clinical care, and the physical environment. We attribute the differences to a variety of factors including limitations in infrastructure, socioeconomic differences, insurance coverage deficiencies, and higher rates of traffic fatalities and accidents. DISCUSSIONS: The largest differences between rural and non-rural counties were in the indexed domains of mortality and clinical care.

conclusionsOur analysis revealed differences in health outcomes in the County Health Rankings' indexed domains between rural and non-rural U.S. counties. We also describe limitations and offer commentary on the need for more uniform measurements in the classification of the terms rural and non-rural. These results can influence practitioners and policy makers in guiding future research and when deciding on funding allocation.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareEmploymentEnvironment DesignHealth BehaviorHumansInsurance CoverageMorbidityMortality, PrematureQuality of Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsUnited StatesUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID26423746
PMCPMC4590732

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.