English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is no universal definition of rurality due to the heterogeneity in what makes a place “rural” or “urban”. This study explored how elements of rurality are related to each other, and how the elements that define rurality vary by region. Data were abstracted for all 1948 non-metropolitan counties in the contiguous 48 states on rurality. K-means cluster analyses (k=4-8) were conducted to examine classification structures among component variables examining regional differences. In the South region, the majority (51.2%) were “Type 2” counties: low population size and density but higher urbanized population. The Midwest had a majority of “Type 3” counties (56.4%): intermediate for population size and density, but higher distances to metro areas. These exploratory findings underscore the heterogeneity and regional variability in rurality and how those measures are structurally related to each other, and essential to understanding those factors that truly drive rural-urban health disparities for older adults. Part of a symposium sponsored by the Rural Aging Interest Group.

Defining Rurality: Structural Relationships, Regional Differences, and Applications for Research With Older Adults