Open AccessDefining Rurality in Hospice Research: Evaluation of Common Measures
Author(s) -
Radion Svynarenko,
Lisa C. Lindley
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of health care for the poor and underserved
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.511
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1548-6869
pISSN - 1049-2089
DOI - 10.1353/hpu.2021.0189
Subject(s) - rurality , census , geography , index (typography) , socioeconomics , rural area , regional science , environmental health , medicine , sociology , population , computer science , world wide web , pathology
Inconsistency in identifying rural hospices has biased research findings and policy analysis. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of eight rural-urban classifications against the gold standard of the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) to determine the utility of alternative measures in hospice research. These classifications included: Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties (URCSC), Urban Influence Codes (UIC), Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), Index of Relative Rurality (IRR), the U.S. Census Bureau, Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes (RUCA), and Frontier and Remote (FAR). The last and the U.S. Census Bureau classified the smallest number of hospices; URCSC, UIC, and RUCC were indistinguishable from the OMB; and RUCA, IRR, and FORHP classified as rural the largest number of hospices. The latter three classifications also had good agreement with the OMB and therefore can be recommended for use instead of the OMB.